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 circumstances of the case infinitely more correctly than they could be known by the committee. This surely must be the opinion of any man who recollected all that had been stated respecting the circumstances of this case, and who was aware that it had been for more than a [year under the consideration of the King's government. The noble lords opposite had had the fullest opportunities for satisfying themselves on every point of the evidence. They knew what credit and what weight ought to be given to every part of the evidence. It was most extraordinary, then, that they should now come forward, and avow that they could not tell in what course they ought to proceed without the assistance of a committee. They ought to be far more capable of saying what was fit to be done than any other noble lords, who could know nothing of the matter, except what those noble lords were pleased to lay before them in papers, to be reported on after, perhaps, an examination of forty-eight hours, or indeed of any other time. It was therefore for the noble lords opposite to

say themselves what course ought to be pursued, without the intervention of any committee. There were, undoubtedly, occasions in which it had been the practice to appoint secret committees. 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. If, indeed, any preliminary secrecy were necessary, that might be as well attained by enforcing the order for the exclusion of strangers, as by the appointment of a committee. After 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 choose to lay before them, and could not call for the defence of the party accused. He thought, therefore, that their lordships had as yet heard no ground stated for the appointment of a committee, more especially when the delicate situation in which the House stood was considered. Liable to become a court of judicature, it was of the utmost importance that the high functions their lordships might be called upon to exercise should be assumed under no questionable circumstances. At a time when the feelings of the public were so deeply interested by the extraordinary nature of the case, it was of importance that they should not be farther excited by the inconsistent mode of proceeding proposed by the noble lord. On these grounds he objected to the appointment of the committee.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble marquis, to give such explanation as was in his power to give on the present occasion. He trusted that the answer he should now make would be satisfactory to the noble marquis and all their lordships, and that he should stand excused for not doing that which the noble marquis appeared to consider indispensable, namely, stating, under the circumstances of the case, what he thought ought to be the future course of proceeding. He contended that the appointment of a secret committee was the fittest course of proceed

ing; and if it was proper to refer papers containing evidence to that committee, it would be improper in him to anticipate what might be the result of the investigation. Having resolved to recommend that the course of proceeding should be to refer the subject to the consideration of a committee, that was sufficient ground for his mouth remaining closed as to what he might expect to be the opinion of that committee. With regard to the inference of the noble marquis,—that because a communication had been made to the House of Commons similar to that laid before their lordships,-this was a case on which they might have to pronounce judgment, any objection taken under that view was perfectly groundless; for this was not a case on which their lordships could be called upon to decide in a judicial capacity. The case was certainly one of great difficulty and delicacy, and he more particularly felt all the difficulty and delicacy which belonged to it in the observations he was about to make, because, in what he had to say, for the sake of explanation, it would be necessary for him to assume guilt; but he wished their lordships distinctly to understand that he meant to speak hypothetically, when he supposed certain facts, to which he should allude, to have taken place. With regard to the objection of the noble marquis, if there were ground for it, he would not only agree with him as to the impropriety of the present proceeding, but would go a great deal further; for, were it supposed

M

8

that evidence existed to convict the Queen of High Treason, he would not think it fit to refer the case in the first instance even to the House of Commons; but would consider it the duty of his Majesty's confidential advisers to institute proceedings at once before the proper tribunal, aud to put her on her trial according to the regular course of law. But, suppose the Queen guilty of what by some might be supposed High Treason the commission of adultery abroad; and suppose that such proof existed on the subject as to leave no doubt of the fact-on that supposition theopinion of the highest legal authority had been taken, and he had to inform their lordships, on that authority, that, supposing such adultery to have been committed, it would not be High Treason according to the law of the country, nor any crime cognizant by our laws. He expected that their lordships would call upon him for explanation on this point. He should therefore observe, that the statute of Edw. III, by which the act of adultery committed by any person with the Queen, or another member of the Royal Family, is made High Treason, did not apply to such a case as he had supposed. That act did not virtually constitute the commission of the crime of treason in her but it was the practice of the lawcourts to consider her guilty, likewise, because she was an accomplice, and in treason all the parties are considered principals. But, if the Queen or the Princess of Wales were to commit