gentlemen on the other side, had already furnished an answer. If they had been in possession of evidence, affecting the character of her majesty, to which they gave credit, they would have had no negotiation, no treaty; they would have commenced their proceedings immediately, and brought in their bill. Some gentlemen might, perhaps, think that such was the course which ought to have been pursued; but, surely, no man would contend, that it would have shown a greater degree of consideration and of mercy towards her majesty; or, that endeavouring to prevent the proceedings against her, by a previous negotiation, evinced any very strong desire of persecution. It was to be recollected also, that it had been stated, from very high Whig authority, in another place, that instead of the bill of Pains and Penalties, her majesty ought to have been proceeded against for high treason, by which, of course, her life would have been put in danger. So much for the mercy of the Whigs; so much for the lenity of those gentlemen who accused his majesty's ministers of persecution. But this was not all. Some gentlemen had complained, that by proroguing parliament, the ministers had deprived her majesty for two months of all means of explanation or redress in parliament.— Now, he begged the House to consider, how the Whigs would have treated her majesty upon this point. A noble lord (lord John Russell), in the month of August last, after the lords had made their report upon the evidence referred to them, after the bill against the Queen had been brought in and read a first time, proposed, in a letter addressed to the member for Bramber, to address his majesty to prorogue parliament, and put an end to all the proceedings. In what situation would that advice have placed her majesty, if it had been adopted? How would she have stood, if this Whig manifesto had been successful? Charges of a most grave nature would have been preferred against her majesty-a report of a committee of the House of Lords, recommending proceedings against her, would have been made and printed-a bill to degrade her would have been brought in, and read a first time-and then, without giving the Queen any opportunity of making any defence, without hearing her counsel, or examining her witnesses, the Whigs, in their great mercy, would have prorogued parliament, and left her, not for two months, but for ever, without the power of justification! Such was the mercy the Whigs would have shown to the Queen; and such was the consistency which they had displayed in their censures upon ministers! He was rather surprised last night at the asperity with which an honourable and learned member (Sir J. Mackintosh), animadverted upon the reasons given by the hon. member for Corfe Castle, for preferring the present ministers to the gentlemen on the other side of the House in office. Those reasons, however, appeared to him to be perfectly fair and constitutional; they were founded upon the uniform language and conduct of the gentlemen themselves; and the preference was given to his colleagues upon an experience of their public conduct. He could not conceive any thing more constitutional than for a member of parliament to express himself so;-but, perhaps, it was not to be wondered at, that gentlemen should feel sore at a sentence of condemnation coming from a person who had so long been the ornament of that House, and who stood so deservedly high in its estimation. Mr. Pole concluded, amidst loud cheering, by declaring his intention of giving a decided negative to the motion. Sir Francis Burdett said, he meant to address his observations to the general question now before the House, although he might find it necessary to advert occasionally to what he would not call the argument, but the sort of rhapsody which they had just heard from the right hon. gentleman. That, indeed, had little or no reference to the question before the House; and whether it were true or not, that the Whigs had, according to the right hon. gentleman, acted in this or that manner, upon this or that occasion, must now be a matter almost indifferent even to the Whigs themselves. But the right hon. gentleman was singularly unfortunate in his allusions to former periods, and in rendering his inferences from them applicable to present circumstances. had thought proper to go back to a time beyond the memory of them all—to the early stage of Mr. Fox's political career; and had quoted an opinion then pronounced by that eminent statesman. It was very possible that Mr. Fox, with little or no experience of the conduct of that House, should have, nearly half a century ago, expressed his belief that it did represent the feelings of the country He e sur that it did sympathise with those feelings traordinary to hear the right hon. gentle-and that there was a possibility of man, a professed enemy to reform, pointfinding them closely united in sentimenting out the imperfections in the theory of together. But who, at this time of day, our representative system; and, if he would contend that such was now the gave up the theory, he was not to be s case, or relieve the right hon. gentleman prised that the people out of doors refrom the singularity which characterized minded them of what had been the prachim, when he ventured to assert, that the tice. He should not, however, now wanHouse of Commons faithfully and accu- der into the question of reform. That rately reflected the opinions and feelings would present itself in due time; but of the people? The right hon. gentle- its importance was such, and it so naturalman was peculiarly unfortunate in his ly entwined itself with every other subject reference to those very times. If he was of great interest, that he could not sincere in his confidence of the authority, severely condemn the right hon. gentlelet him evince it by the same test as that man for introducing it on this occasion. to which Mr. Pitt appealed; let the ad- As to what had been said of the "radiministration, of which he is a member, cals," or "the many," of whom he was dissolve the parliament. Mr. Pitt did so, one-if it were meant that this “ many,' though then a reformer, and though he or the people at large, were desirous of had declared, that without a reform, it mischief, he would answer, that no man was impossible to effect any practical had a right so to calumniate the people good within those walls. The right hon. of England, and particularly no minister, gentleman had introduced a variety of at a time when the right hon. gentleman desultory topics, admitting, at the same and his colleagues were doing all that lay time, that the Whigs, whom he so often in their power to degrade the royal family condemned possessed amongst them in the eyes of the people, and to destroy men of great talent, rank, property, and that respect and reverence with which the consideration; but lamenting that they royal family was wont to be regarded: should have suffered themselves to be still less were they entitled to caluinuiate joined by the radicals, or the great bulk the people at a moment when the latter and body of the people. [Cries of "No, were stepping forward to support the no," from the Treasury bench.] The dignity of the Crown against its immeright hon. gentleman's expression was, diate advisers. Did they conceive it "The radicals or the many," and he now possible to degrade so important a memdescribed "the many" as following and ber of that family as the Queen-consort, looking up to persons of high character, without doing material injury to the infortune, and abilities. For his own part, terests of every other, so far as those inhe hailed the prospect, and trusted that terests were connected with the public the connexion would continue, as he welfare ?-This observation brought him believed it to be the only practicable a little to the question now before the means by which redress could be obtained House; and he approached it with all for these grievous wrongs resulting from the circumspection due to the exalted so many years of mal-administration. rank of the parties concerned as well as The mode of remark, the coarseness of due from a sense of justice to ministers terms in which the right hon. gentleman, themselves. Adverting, however, to the had indulged, when he talked of the situation of the Queen, unjustifiably Whigs being scouted, was rather extra-treated as she had been, and adverting ordinary. Had such language been re- also to the feelings of the people, he ported of an American assembly, it would should deem it necessary, in the first place, have been quoted as a proof of the want to discard from his mind all technical of refinement in a democratic govern- objections-all legal subtilty-and to ment. Whatever might be the defects disperse, if he could, that worse than of that House, as arising from the state Cimmerian darkness which had been cast of its representation-defects which he over the subject. In that light he could never had, nor should disguise-he not but recognise the truth of the only part should always uphold it as an assembly of the speech of the hon. member for Corfewhere the courtesies of life were respected castle, in which all must agree; namely, as a practical assembly, consisting of that the beginning, progress, and terminathe best-conducted audience the world tion of these proceedings were equally lahad ever produced. It was rather ex-mentable; and in his (Sir F.'s) mind, esta blished the strongest grounds for the con- most trifling cause-evidence on which demnation of the conduct of ministers. he would not consent to the hanging of Was it possible, in the whole progress of a dog. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. human events, to recognise any thing Peel) had contended, that a bill of Pains more preposterous and contrary to com- and Penalties was necessary, that this mon sense, than the course they pursued? form of proceeding became expedient There were three modes in which he should in consequence of the high ground on consider their conduct. Had it been their which the House had placed her majesty wish that the Queen should remain abroad, by their address. Now it appeared to why did they comport themselves towards him that a bill of Pains and Penalties her in such manner, as to make it impossi- was by no means likely to produce its ble that she could continue abroad, as, intended effect, whilst it was extremely indeed, to make it necessary for her quiet well calculated to lead to those conse that she should return to this country? quences which it must have been most If it was wrong that she should return, desirable to avert. The right hon. gentlewhy did ministers leave nothing undone man indeed had spoken as if he did not which made it unavoidable? But when think the Queen innocent; but what, she had returned, and when the preserva- then, became of his argument in justification of the public tranquillity was their tion of the proceedings, that they were duty, why were injury and insult re- absolutely necessary in order to prevent peated, in order to increase all those adultery and high treason from being other difficulties which were of their own seated on the throne? As far as this was creation? Had those insults never been the object, the measure had failed, even inflicted-had the Queen been received according to the right hon. gentleman; in a manner correspondent with her and what he had contended was necessary, station and dignity-she must soon have turned out to be ineffectual. On the ceased to be considered as an object of present question he thought he had some political importance. Had she been reason to expect the vote of the attorallowed a court, it would have been ney-general. The proceedings against visited by persons wholly unconnected the Queen began by the exclusion of her with any of the parties of the country, name from the Liturgy, and were followCastra, ubi nulla potentia. Had she beened up by permitting the evidence against thus received by the government, she her to be published. Not only was this would probably, in a short time, have been evidence published, but the speech which happy to go again abroad. So much, the attorney-general permitted himself then, for the wisdom of the treatment to make in opening the charges, had been which she had experienced when her other given to the world, and sent forth apunprovoked wrongs had caused her to parently with the view of sinking deep revisit this country. He might also into the public mind. That speech had, observe, in the third instance, that as her he must confess, filled him with astonishalleged offence did not amount to high ment. On no occasion, and least of all treason, and as the sole object was, to on this, could he have expected that a show that she was unfit for her high public officer would act the disgraceful station, this purpose might have been part of collecting the rhetoric of the fully answered by a proceeding in the lowest brothels, and afterwards pour it ecclesiastical courts. A single fact would forth with unbounded licence in the ears then have been sufficient, and all that of a disgusted audience. Unrestrained exposition of evidence which, if it had by any consideration of the Queen's exnot produced immorality, had excited alted rank, or by any recollection of her universal disgust, might have been avoid- misfortunes, he had endeavoured, by a ed. The charges were of that nature statement of seeming facts and specious that they ought never to have been pro-and highly-coloured descriptions, to exduced, unless there was a certainty of cite rejudice and odinm against her, and supporting them by the most unexception-then, proh pudor! called no evidence to able testimony. He could not conceive how any administration could be guilty of a greater offence to the Crown or to the public, than to produce such charges against the first subject in the realm on evidence insufficient to determine the support the most infamous parts of his accusation [Loud cheering]. The hon. and learned gentleman spoke as if the Spirit of Evil dwelt in his bosom, and possessed his tongue; for who but the Author of all malice-who, with the feel ings of a gentleman or a man in his heart [Cries of Order."] The Speaker suggested to the hon. baronet that his warmth was obviously carrying him beyond the limits of parliamentary order. Sir F. Burdett said, he should never hesitate to bow to the authority of the Chair on a point of order, and should feel grateful to any member who interrupted him when he was transgressing the bounds of parliamentary debate. All that he meant was, that if charges of a heinous nature were preferred by a public officer against an exalted person, and that person a lady-a lady, too, so unfortunate, that her offences, if she had committed any, ought to find compassion, if not excuse-where the case was such that no one appeared as a complaining party, and where the sole ground of the prosecution was a real or pretended state necessitythat under such circumstances, it did not become a public officer to betray an eagerness to convict, but rather under the dictation of gentlemanlike feelings to show a spirit of indulgence, and to extenuate instead of exaggerating a supposed offence. There was no necessity for going into a long nauseous detail. Had one single material fact been proved, the rest might have been spared, and ought to have been spared, in a prosecution avowedly instituted pro bono publico. But how was this impropriety aggravated, when, to all the details of statement, were added the details of testimony. All this diversified calumny was thrown into circulation; and never, perhaps, had there been so many steps taken to prepossess the public mind, and induce it to prejudge a question. When, however, he said that the attorney-general ought to vote for the present motion, he did so upon this principle-that he had not long since objected in the court of King's-bench to the reception of affidavits in extenuation of language which he maintained had been too strong for the occasion. To him it did not appear the language could be held to be too strong, without inquiring into the circumstances which called it forth, and to which it was applied. It was held, however, by the attorney-general, and so ruled by the court, that as other parties might be affected by the affidavits, they ought not to be received, although necessary to his own justification. This he might for a moment be allowed to say was falla how cious, because large bodies of men could not be affected so as to incur any danger of being brought to trial by such meaus. The attorney-general must agree with him at least, that it was extremely censurable in his majesty's ministers to have pursued a conduct, which in his (Sir F. Burdett's) case, he opposed as contrary to all law and justice. The right hon. the member for Oxford had spoken much of the feelings entertained by the country with respect to the conduct of ministers. It was contended on his (Sir F. B.'s) side of the House, and he thought justly, that that feeling was decidedly against ministers; the right hon. member, however, was of opinion, that public opinion was entirely in favour of himself and his colleagues. This difficulty reminded him of a celebrated play of Molière, in which the two Amphitrions were so like each other, as not to be distinguished apart. The loyalists, however, decided as the parties in the play did-" Le véritable Amphitrion est celui chez qui l'on dine." But the view which he took of public opinion differed widely from that of the right hon. member, for he thought that the great mean of conducting peaceably the government of the country was, to receive and to respect the voice of the people.-With respect to the question of the Liturgy, he thought that the erasure of her majesty's name could scarcely be justified in law; but even taking the right to make such erasure to be, past all dispute, a prerogative of the Crown, still the great question for the decision of the House was, whether that prerogative had been wisely and prudently exercised; and sure the hon. member was, that there was not a man out of the House, and scarcely a man in it-scarcely the noble lord opposite himself-who could say upon his honour, "Were the act to do again, I would again take the course that has been taken." It was said that public meetings were a farce-that they did not express the feelings of the country; but, on the contrary, that the real feelings and opinions of the country were to be found in the loyal addresses which had been got up in holes and corners. If that House did not express the feelings and opinions of the country, where were those opinions to be found but in the meetings of the people? And he would venture to say, that never had public opinion been so fully, so unanimously expressed, as at the meetings which had been held upon the late proceedings of ministers. But to counteract that opinion, loyal addresses came forward, as if they were the only loyal persons in the country, or, as if disaffection to his majesty's person or to the constitution existed in the country. Never since the Revolution had there been such a strong, such an unanimous expression of feeling against the conduct of any ministry as against the present. But in expressing that feeling, the people drew a wide and marked distinction between the king and his ministers. To their sovereign they expressed every feeling of respect and affection; but at the same time they showed their determination not to support a ministry who were bringing ruin and destruction on the country. There was another view of the case, which, to him, seemed important. Supposing it to be true, as asserted by some gentlemen, that the Queen was not innocent: supposing that to be true; and a notion, more likely to raise the indignant feeling of the couutry, could scarcely be set on foot-even supposing the Queen to be guilty, guilty or innocent, ministers were equally culpa ble. But a woman ought to be considered innocent against whom no witnesses had been produced, except such people as Majoochi, Demont, and a host of chambermaids and ostlers, the scum of Italy, and who stood accused upon testimony, not merely unworthy of credit, but absolutely inadmissible for the witnesses, according to the holding of government itself, could not feel themselves bound by the oaths they had taken. The witnesses were of the Catholic religion; and, upon the ground that the oaths of such persons could not be held binding, ministers excluded four millions of subjects, English and Irish, from the rights of the constitution. They excluded lord Shrewsbury, and lord Fingal, and many other persons of rank, upon the ground that their oaths could not be relied upon; and yet, they were ready to receive the evidence of the 'creatures he had alluded to, the evidence upon which the Queen had been arraigned!-evidence, too, so extremely ill-calculated to answer the purpose desired; because, in order to have effected the end proposed, evidence not only good and true ought to have been produced, but evidence to the validity of which the people of England were likely to assent; and even if the wretched people employed had by accident sworn to a single truth! no man in the country would have given VOL. IV. them credit. Surely, upon such evidence, the Queen was entitled to be acquitted. But even supposing her to be guilty, it was bad judgment in ministers to throw her guilt before the people of the country. 'This was sufficient to show, that they were bad statesmen-men who regarded nothing but their places, and did not see an inch beyond their noses. The right hon. member for Oxford found it impossible to believe, that ministers had sacrificed their own opinions upon the subject in question; if they had done so, they would have forfeited all claim to the confidence of that right hon. member, who, even at the hazard of Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform-to him, plague, pestilence, and famine-would have quitted them! Now, unless report did great injustice to ministers, they had actually gone out of office upon the question; and if they had stayed out of office, it would have been a great benefit to the country. Ministers, however, had not examined all the evidence with which, in the case of the Queen, they might have provided themselves. They might, had it so pleased them, have examined a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), who, no doubt, from his polished manners and classical mind, was likely to form an accurate judgment upon such points, and who had declared her majesty to be the life, the grace, and the ornament of society. That right hon. gentleman had said, like Pilate, that he washed his hands, and that he would have nothing to do with that just person's persecution. When the affair should be terminated, that right hon. gentleman might probably again appear in the House; and if he had been firm enough to have remained at his post, and to have exerted his influence, then, in his (sir F. B.'s) opinion, there would have been a stop to the whole proceeding. The excuse for this proceeding, however, was state necessity; a word which might cover a variety of extraordinary meanings. Of that state necessity, the right hon. member for Oxford had said much, without proving that any such necessity had ever existed. But, even if a state necessity were shown, he should still say, that ministers were culpable. After that unfortunate separation from her husband, which at once severed the Queen from her station and from her duty, and which, at the same time, put an end to all interest on the part of the public in her conduct: after that unfortunate separation, minis # 2 H |
