Throne, and, in a chair placed at the right side of the canopy, her Majesty took her seat. Upon her entrance, the Peers all rose, and bowed to the Queen. The sensation caused by her Majesty's arrival was most profound, and when the impression was in some degree subsided, several of the Peers entered into the most earnest discourse. The Queen took her seat with much grace and dignity. She was attended by Lord Archibald and Lady Hamilton, and suite. She was dressed in a most rich suite of black, a crape turban was upon her head, and a white lace veil thrown over her; white gloves and shoes. The Queen's suite took their places behind her Majesty's chair. Their Lordship's baving taken their seats, the proper officer proceeded again to call over the remainder of the names of the Peers. CALL CONTINUED. LORD CHOLMONDELY-above 70. The DUKE of CAMBRIDGE was excused upon the Duke of York saying that he was upon his Majesty's service, and upon a further statement of Lord Liverpool, The DUKE of SUSSEX.-The Lord Chancellor said, that he had received a let ter from the Duke, in which he begged to be excused on account of consanguinity, and observed, that he had been silent on the delicate subject, and thought that line of conduct the most respectful. Excused. The DUKE of YORK being called, he answered and said, "Though I, who stand In still more delicate circumstances, have urgent and pressing duties to perform, yet neither them nor relationship shall prevent me from doing my duty.- (Hear.) The remainder of the names being read, LORD ERSKINE rose to present a pe. tition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of London, relative to the bill now on their Lordships' table. A former petition on this subject had been rejected on account of certain passages which were deemed improper for their Lord. ships to receive. Those passages were in the present petition avoided. The petition ers merely objected generally to bills of Pains and Penalties, as contrary to the established rules of British Jurisprudence, and implored the House to pursue some other course that might be better calculated to secure the affections of the people towards the House of Brunswick, and more adapted to the usual Course of British justice. His Lordship observed, that he perceived nothing in this petition that should operate against its reception by the House. Instances had been known in which petitions had been presented to the King against his sanctioning particular measures while in progress through the parliament. The petition was then read, and laid upon the table. The DUKE of LEINSTER said, as he was leaving home that morning, Mr Sheriff Par kins had placed in his hands a petition from the freeholders of the county of Middlesex, upon the subject of the bill of Pains and Penalties He now rose to present that petition; but, as it was signed by Mr. Sheriff Parkins, on the part of the meeting, he believed that, consistently with the order of their Lordships' House, it could only be received as that Gentleman's petition. The petition (which has already been published) was then read, and ordered to lie on the table; the Lord Chancellor observing, that it must be considered merely as the petition of Mr. Sheriff Parkins. The clerk then proceeded to call over the names of those Peers who had not answered in the first instance, and for whose absence no excuse had been made. Lord Glerawley not answering to his name, he was stated by Lord Liverpool to be above the age of 70. A short discussion took place upon the necessity of complying with the rules of the House, by sending notice of the excuses to the Lord Chancellor. It was determined that the fact of indisposition or superior age being known to any other Peer might be good grounds for a motion. Lord Glerawley was accordingly excused on the motion of the Earl of Liverpool. Some of the other Peers, who were absent when the list was first called over, amongst whom was Lord Hutchinson, now answered, and excuses were made for the remainder. The DUKE of HAMILTON moved, that the Duke of Sussex should be excused, for the reasons given in his Royal Highness's letter. Ordered. The preliminary business having been gone through, The EARL of LIVERPOOL moyed, that the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties be now read. The DUKE of LEINSTER immediately notice he had given on a previous day, he rose and said, that, in conformity with the would, in this early stage, oppose the mea sure now about to be brought under their trude much on their Lordships' time. The consideration. He would not, however inbest way, he believed, to bring it to a point, was to move, "That the said order be, now rescinded."" The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question. Not Coutent" was very powerful, -The cry of "Content" was feeble, that of The DUKE of LEINSTER demanded. division. * 1 Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when the numbers were Contents, 41-Non-Contents, 206---- MINORITY FOR STOPPING ALL PRO-¡ly to arise from it. Bills of Pains and PeCEEDINGS AGAINST THE QUEEN. Earl of Essex, Duke of Leinster, Somerset, Bedford, Argyle, Hamilton, Visc. & Anson, St. Alban's, Hood, Marq. of Downshire, Darnley, Jersey, Kenyon, Albemarle, Suffolk, Clifdon, Besborough, Dundas, Stanhope, Fortesque, Carnarvon, Dacre, Grosvenor, Ducie, Thanet, Cowper, Holland, On our readmission below the bar the order of the day was read; after which it was moved by the Earl of Liverpool that counsel should be called in and heard in support of the preamble of the Bill. nalties had all the effects of ex post facto laws: they were intended to punish those by an indirect method who could not be convicted by due course of law; they were meant to supply defects of evidence: but he would ever contend that an attempt so to supply a defect of evidence was opposed to every principle of public justice, if the principles of public justice, as laid down by our courts of law, were indeed well founded. On that ground alone, if there were no other on which he could found his opposition, he would pro test against the course which their Lordships seemed inclined to pursue. The last instance of a Bill of this nature, and the instance. which was most decidedly relied on, was that of Sir J Fenwick, in the reign of William II. Had he, however, existed at that period, be would have given his decided vote against the Bill. The only ground for it was, that some of the witnessess had been withdrawn, and that, therefore, there was a want of the But, even in that case, he thought their necessary evidence to go before the public. Lordships should not have proceeded by a Bill of Pains and Penalties to supply a defect of evidence. He could not admit the case of The EARL of CARNARVON rose to state he ought to have been found guil y by an exSir John Fenwick to be of such a nature that his motives for the course he intended to take traordinary process, when by the usual course upon this occasion. He thought it due to that would have been pursued in a court of jus their Lordships, and to the country, that he tice, he must have been acquitted. That busishould fully enter into the reasons which iu-ness, he found, had commenced in the House duced him to oppose the present proceeding. of Commons. It had created many discus He objected to it, because he felt that it was sions; and when the Bill was brought in, there inconsistent with the public interests; and was a majority of 90 members in favour of it: also because he felt it was inconsistent with but when it passed, that majority had dwintheir Lordships' honour, which he conceived dled away to 33. The Bill came regularly bewould be tarnished if this Bill were suffered fore the House of Lords: and so little did their to proceed one step further. He felt such Lordships feel the expediency of passing it, strong objections to a Bill of this kind, tha that it was carried by only a majority of 7. he was now ready to state, that he could Bishop Burnett attempted to argue that the hardly conceive any cause sufficiently for- Bill of Pains and Penalties was a constitu cible to induce him to vote for such a pro- tional and legal mode of proceeding, and ceeding. But if any case existed in which the first case which the Learned Bishop adhe could bring his mind to support a Bill of duced in support of his argument was a most Pains and Penalties, it must be one of abso-extraordinary one. He stated as a proof of lute necessity. Was there, he would ask, the legality of the proceeding, that a man one of their Lordships, or was there a man accused of having attempted to destroy the throughout the whole country, who conceiv- Bishop of Rochester, by infusing a quantity ed that the investigation of these charges, of poison into his food, was not only awardunder all the circumstances, was called for ed by such a measure to be guilty, but was by the necessity of the case? (Hear, hear.) sentenced to be boiled alive. This was the Did their Lordships believe that the country triumpbant species of example by which the would be threatened with danger if those Learned Bishop had attempted to defend a charges had never been instituted? For his proceeding which was contrary to every es own part, he conceived that they did not en-tablished doctrine of law. It might be stated, tertain such an opinion; but, on the contra- that in tumultuons times, when great dan ry, every individual who had maturely weigh-ger was apprehended, this arbitrary proceeded the subject was, he had no doubt, impressing might be resorted to, and justified on the ed with the idea that danger was rather to be ground of necessity. But where was the apprehended from the course they were pur- danger in the present case? Where was the suing. He could not conceive any benefit necessity of a parliamentary instead of a ju that could be derived from the further pro-dicial proceeding? And in the case of Sir ceeding with this measure; but he could see John Fenwick, which was so much relied many difficulties and dangers that were like-on, what evil was likely to have been en e from it. Bills of Pains and Pead all the effects of ex post facts cy were intended to punish those by ct method who could not be con due course of law: they were meant defects of evidence: but he would end that an attempt so to supply evidence was opposed to every prin public justice, if the principles of stice, as laid down by our courts of e indeed well founded. On that one, if there were no other on which found his opposition, he would pro st the course which their Lordship clined to pursue. The last instanc of this nature, and the instance s most decidedly relied on, was the enwick, in the reign of William however, existed at that period, ve given his decided vote against The only ground for it was, that The witnessess had been withdras, therefore, there was a want of the evidence to go before the public in that case, he thought the should not have proceeded by ins and Penalties to supply a defect e. He could not admit the case d Fenwick to be of such a nature that to have been found guilty by an e y process, when by the usual cours have been pursued in a court of ju ist have been acquitted. That busi und, had commenced in the House ons. It had created many discus when the Bill was brought in, ther ority of 90 members in favour of it: it passed, that majority had dri to 33. The Bill came regularly be Onse of Lords: and so little did thet feel the expedieney of passing it, s carried by only a majority of 1. rnett attempted to argue that the ins and Penalties was a constitu legal mode of proceeding, and ase which the Learned Bishop ad upport of his argument was a must ary one. He stated as a proof of Ey of the proceeding, that a ma having attempted to destroy the Rochester, by infusing a quantity Ento his food, was not only award a measure to be guilty, but wa to be boiled alive. This was the t species of example by which the Bishop had attempted to defends I which was contrary to every es octrine of law. It might be stated, multuons times, when great dan prehended, this arbitrary proceed be resorted to, and justified on the But where was the necessity, he present case? Where was the a parliamentary instead of a ju eeding? And in the case of Sir wick, which was so much relied evil was likely to have been en with the majority a few minute being brought to England could operate so with respect to a question on which so learn- pplicable to the case: Here When his Noble Friend asked, what sinte under considerable difficulty and ment. His Noble Friend asked advantage could be derived from - He went further than that; Only that no advantage could be mn it, but that it was likely to pro mischief. If their Lordships in a different situation-if m ad been yet proposed to themeen a confidential adviser of the consulted as to the expediency Fintroducing such a bill; in that Noble Friend had stated would eat weight, and must have beer as matter of deep importance y felt the force of the personal which his Noble Friend had nisters, when he stated that they g to give to the Queen's great d establishment, that they were weet our ministers abroad to treat oper respect, and to cause her to edged Queen of these realms by ers. [Here the Earl of Liverp is dissent.] The Noble Ea issent from the accuracy of this and he undoubtedly did not wish thing from the proceeding but erfectly correct. He believed the offer made to her Majesty was ed she consented not to come t y she should be allowed 50,000 ections should be given to out treat her with proper respect r legal title as Queen, should be n any country abroad where she ose to reside. Now, when so dmitted, he could not understand gle circumstance of her Majesty diusitru proong of to then svve, |