the most distinct account of the proceedings intended to be instituted against her.

Mr Brougham insisted, that his Majesty's government would not only have to perform the task, and to succeed in the task, of making out a strong case against the Queen; but they would have another task to execute, foremost in situation and paramount in importance, as regarded their own justification-they would have to shew, satisfactorily to shew, to convince the House and the country, that it had become impossible longer to postpone or to suppress the discussion. Which way soever might be the merits of the case was, in his view, a matter of minor importance, because, whatever might be the Queen's case, the case of ministers must be, that the landing of the Queen in England, that simple act, made all further forbearance absolutely impossible. Mr Brougham declared the statements published respecting what had past at St Omer's to be in a great degree garbled; at the same time he admitted their truth in the main, by declaring his astonishment by what channel they had reached the public, and protesting his own innocence of any concern in their communication. On the following day, the subject was brought fully into discussion, by the motion made by ministers in both Houses, to refer the papers submitted to them to a secret committee, which should be directed to inquire what proceedings, or whether any, it would be proper to hold upon them. He declined saying much at present, and wished rather to hold himself in readiness to answer any objections that might be raised.-The Marquis of Lansdowne was the first member in opposition who spoke on this delicate subject. He complained that ministers should not have given any information as to the grounds on

1

which they had adopted the present course of proceeding. In the absence of this information, he would state such observations as had occurred to him. It was well known that a similar message had been sent to the other House, of which, for aught their lordships knew, an impeachment might be the consequence. They would then be called upon to act as judges; and he besought them to consider, whether the course now recommended did not involve something inconsistent with the exercise of such a function. Was the course proposed by the noble earl attended with any advantage capable of inducing their lordships to encounter this risk? Certainly, if the reference of the papers to a secret committee would really have the effect of secrecy with respect to the publicif that reference might be the means of preventing the public of England from becoming parties to transactions which it must be the wish of their lordships, and every honest man, rather to conceal in oblivion-he would approve the course proposed by the noble lord. But did any man actually believe that the reference to a secret committee would have such an effect? Was the illustrious person who was made the subject of inquiry, to receive no notice of the evidence laid before the committee, and to have no opportunity of rebutting it? Why, then, were not their lordships in the first instance informed of the view which his Majesty's government had taken of the case? Were there not in that house noble lords who had been the advisers of the crown in this affair? What additional information to that which these noble lords possessed, was it possible to convey through the medium of the committee? His Majesty's Ministers had had every opportunity of forming an opinion, and must know all the cir

cumstances of the case infinitely more correctly than they could be known by the committee. All secrecy was in its nature an evil, but occasions might occur in which it was necessary. In no instance, however, did the usual practice in the appointment of secret committees apply to the present case. Secret committees had been appointed in cases of plots and conspiracies, the proof of which depended on the evidence of persons whose names could not be revealed in cases when the investigation related to individuals, whom it was important to keep unapprized of the existence of any proceedings against them-or in cases in which the interests of foreign states were concerned. But were any of these instances applicable on the present occasion? Was it necessary to conceal the names, characters, and situations of the witnesses in a case on which their lordships might be ultimately called upon to give judgment? Whatever propriety there might be in concealment, it could not be admitted in cases, the result of which might be penal. Af ter the report of the committee, the House would not be placed in a better situation to judge than they would be on the statement of the noble lord opposite; for the committee, it appeared, were to have no opportunity of hearing any other evidence than that which his Majesty's ministers chose to lay before them, and could not call for the defence of the party

accused.

The Earl of Liverpool observed, that having recommended the reference to a committee, as the fittest course of proceeding, he could, with no propriety, anticipate the decision of that committee. He could assure the House, however, on the highest authority, that there was no chance of the affair coming from the Lower House in the form of an impeach

ment. In all cases of High Treason, the female could be brought in only as an accessory. In case of adultery committed with a foreigner, that foreigner not being amenable to our laws could not be guilty of high treason. Where there was no principal, therefore, there could be no accessory. In all cases of bills of pains and penalties since the Revolution, he believed secret committees had been appointed. On these grounds he thought the course he had recommended was most decorous and respectful to the Queen, and most suited to the case. What it was proposed to inquire was, whether any proceeding was proper, and, if any, of what nature and to what extent; and he would ask, was not this more decorous to the individual, than for a minister to come down at once with a proposition?

Lord Holland observed, that though it had been given as the opinion of many lawyers, that the House of Commons could not institute an impeachment upon the present case; yet the papers had been referred to that House which formed the Grand Inquest of the nation, and was at perfect liberty to form its own opinion on the subject. He knew of no instance in which penal proceedings had been founded on facts contained in a message to both Houses. If a bill of divorce, or of pains and penalties, was wanted, the application should have come to the House of Lords only; if judicial proceedings were contemplated, these could be instituted by the Commons alone. By appointing a committee to inquire and to decide, before they knew what would be referred to them for their judgment in their judicial capacity, they placed themselves in a situation either of being a tainted tribunal, or of refusing justice altogether. This was an objection to the motion now

recommended, which he could urge on constitutional grounds; but the influence of this objection was greatly strengthened on his mind by a recollection of the mode in which secret committees had lately been appointed, the manner in which they had conducted themselves, the measures they recommended, and the unfortunate associations connected with them. He would not examine the laws which had been enacted on the suggestion of such committees, but he could not forget that their acts had been of such a nature that a green bag and a secret committee were considered by the public as the prelude to the most monstrous displays of injustice, harshness, and tyranny. It could not be denied that there existed great sensitiveness and irritability in the public mind on the question now before the House, and it would be unfortunate if these feelings should be increased by seeing a mode of proceeding adopted, so odious and obnoxious, as that by a secret committee. He therefore conjured their lordships, as they valued their own character and estimation with the country, not to adopt such a mode of proceeding.

The Lord Chancellor, after stating that he never had so painful a duty to discharge as now, defended the appointment of a committee of inquiry, which appeared to him the step best calculated to prevent injustice. The objection of his noble friend (Lord Holland) to the appointment of a committee, did not appear to him well founded. There might be judicial proceedings at the instance of the Commons, after the committee had reported on the papers before the House, as the secret committee could, in that case, be regarded only in the light of a grand jury, deciding that matter of accusation existed. The committee, on examining the papers,

would declare, either that there were grounds of accusation, or not. If the former, the House would know how to deal with it; and if the latter, no injustice could be done. What, therefore, could accrue from the appointment of the committee? Good God! could their lordships be said to be deciding against individuals, because they stood forward to protect them from the result of disclosures, where there had not been found grounds of trial? He entirely agreed with Lord Liverpool as to the legal character of the supposed crime, which, from being committed abroad, could not be amenable to the ordinary course of justice. In a case like the present, Parliament must interfere, or there would be no interference whatever.

The Earl of Donoughmore, who had usually opposed the measures of ministry, gave them his entire support in the present question. The noble lords who had argued the question upon his side of the house, appeared to have forgotten the nature of the proceeding, the merits of which they were discussing. Those noble lords seemed to regard the proceeding as one which was to criminate, and even finally condemn, the illustrious person to whose conduct it was applied: but was it not most clear that the proceeding amounted simply to this to an inquiry on the part of that House, conducted by a secret committee, conducted in the manner most decorous, most delicate, and most respectful, both towards the parties concerned, and towards the public, and conducted in the manner most peculiarly calculated to allay that irritation of which such frequent mention had been made?

Lords Lansdowne and Holland severally explained, after which the reference to a committee was carried without a division.

The same day was marked in the

House of Commons by a more animated and interesting debate. It was opened by a communication from the Queen herself, which was read by Mr Brougham, and was conceived in the following terms:

"The Queen thinks it necessary to inform the House of Commons, that she has been induced to return to England in consequence of the measures pursued against her honour and her peace for some time by secret agents abroad, and lately sanctioned by the conduct of the Government at home. In adopting this course, her Majesty has had no other purpose whatsoever but the defence of her character, and the maintenance of those just rights which have devolved upon her by the death of that revered Monarch, in whose high honour and unshaken affection she had always found her surest support.

"Upon her arrival, the Queen is surprised to find that a message has been sent down to Parliament, requiring its attention to written documents; and she learns with still greater astonishment, that there is an intention of proposing that these should be referred to a select committee. It is this day fourteen years since the first charges were brought forward against her Majesty. Then, and upon every occasion during that long period, she has shewn the utmost readiness to meet her accusers, and to court the fullest inquiry into her conduct. She now also desires an open investigation, in which she may see both the charges and the witnesses against her -a privilege not denied to the meanest subject of the realm. In the face of the Sovereign, the Parliament, and the country, she solemnly protests against the formation of a select tribunal to examine documents, privately prepared by her adversaries, as a proceeding unknown to the law of the land, and a flagrant violation of all the

principles of justice. She relies with full confidence upon the integrity of the House of Commons for defeating the only attempt she has any reason to fear.

"The Queen cannot forbear to add, that even before any proceedings were resolved upon, she had been treated in a manner too well calculated to prejudge her case. The omission of her name in the liturgy; the withholding the means of conveyance usually afforded to all the branches of the Royal Family; the refusal even of an answer to her application for a place of residence in the royal mansions; and the studied slight, both of English ministers abroad, and of the agents of all foreign powers over whom the English Government had any influence must be viewed as measures designed to prejudice the world against her, and could only have been justified by trial and conviction."

The message being read, Lord Castlereagh entered into an elaborate erposé of all the views and principles upon which Government had acted in this critical proceeding. The House would readily perceive the great pain of that duty which devolved on him in introducing to their notice one of the most delicate, anxious, and momentous public questions that ever was agitated. Generally speaking, Parliament, in replying to a royal message, had a direct and simple course to follow; but he was sure that enough of temper had been disclosed within these walls-and he might appeal to the declaration of the learned gentleman himself, (Mr Brougham) whether there had not been enough of exaggeration and partial representation without doors to call on him so far to travel beyond the real necessity of the case, as to offer such explanations as would make the circumstances of which the House were to judge ge

nerally understood. His Majesty's ministers came down to the House neither as persecutors nor prosecutors-no part of their conduct, he was sure, warranted such a charge. His Majesty threw himself on the great council of the land, in a case which nearly interested the nation as well as himself-called on them to look to the case, and to tender him such advice as they would think best suited to the situation in which the country now stood. There appeared to him no doubt as to the proper course to be pursued; and he could assure the House, that no vote which any one might give, would fetter his decision as to ulterior proceedings, or even as to whether there should be any proceedings at all. But at the same time, he should mislead the House and on that point he deprecated the idea of the learned gentleman (Mr Brougham) deceiving himself if he disguised that in these communications there was matter that gravely and deeply implicated the illustrious personage to whose conduct the documents referred. He was astonished that the Queen's advisers should have impressed her with the belief that any guilt could attach to her, or even to the lowest individual in the land, without a public hearing of the whole merits of the case, without a full examination of evidence, such as was in all cases admitted in a court of justice, and without a full power of cross-examining that evidence, so as to afford every opportunity of proving or disproving the charge imputed.

The first question before the House, related to the course of proceeding best calculated for securing justice to all parties concerned. He proHe proposed a committee, appointed not by ballot, but by nomination. He would wish an impartial committee, yet he would not propose Mr

Brougham and Mr Denman, the Queen's confidential advisers, as members of it. He conceived, that by so doing, he would place these gentlemen in a very awkward and unpleasant situation. Lord Castlereagh could not help remarking on the opposite line which prevailed among some members on the opposite side. Mr Tierney had, on a former occasion, urged, that no step should be taken with regard to the Queen, till the charges against her had been fully investigated, and till either her guilt or her innocence were fully established. Mr Brougham, on the contrary, denounced ministers as having precipitated such an investigation; and declared, that they could not be justified in the eyes of the country, till they had shewn themselves to have made every possible sacrifice in order to avert it. He conceived— the honourable and learned gentleman would bear him out in the assertion-that, after the transactions which had occurred within the last forty-eight hours, little could be expected from any further negociation with the illustrious personage. himself could bear testimony, and had in fact borne testimony, how little her Majesty was under the advice of those who should be considered as her legal advisers. The publication of the papers, which the honourable and learned gentleman complained of, as having been sent before the public partly untrue, and garbled, incorrect, and imperfect, was a proof that her Majesty had not been swayed by the advice of those who were her constitutional advisers, but had taken other, and he would add, criminal advice, and appealed to the lowest order of the people. (Hear, hear, from the ministerial benches.) He would ask for what purpose had those communications been made, and what was the use made of them? He regretted

He