favourable to an accused person than a pro- Lord Erskine followed. Were the House, he said, sitting in a judicial capacity, he would subscribe to his Learned friend's maxim, "fiat justitia ruat cœlum," but here many considerations of policy interposed. Lord Erskine proceeded, combating the injustice and impolicy of the Bill until one o'clock, when he became much exhausted, and at length faint ed. He was carried out by Lords Grey and Holland, and the House adjourned for a quarter of an hour. At the expiry of the period allotted for the adjournment, Lord Erskine remaining in nearly the same state, Lord Lauderdale resumed the discussion, and argued in favour of the Bill. The Earl of Rosebery begged to offer his sentiments to their Lordships, more from a wish to satisfy his own conscience than from any presumptuous supposition that it would be in his power to influence them in their decision on the grave and important question before them. Feeling, however, as he did, the great impropriety and evil of passing the present Bill, he was certainly desirous of occupying a few minutes of their Lordships' time, with a brief declaration of his opinion. This, he trusted, he might say, without arrogating to himself more than that to which he was justly entitled, that there was no Noble Lord present more free from any undue partialities on this question, or more determined to discharge his duty, solely and strictly with a reference to the evidence that had been adduced at the bar, and to a view of all the circumstances of the case. It was his conviction of all the objections which existed against the bill now under their Lordships' consideration, which had induced him, at a former period, to entertain a wish, that an opening might be left for a more regular, and, as it appeared to him, a more justifiable course of proceeding than that which had been adopted. Their Lordships, however, thought otherwise, and the result was the measure be fore them. He now openly and freely acknowledged, that it seemed to him that there was the most decisive and uncontradicted testimony, that the most improper practices had been resorted to in support of the bill. He meant no insinuation whatever against his Majesty's government. He by no means imputed to them the practices to which he alluded; but they existed nevertheless, and when he took those improper practices into consideration, and added to them the circumstance, that one important and material witness had been withdrawn, and was absent from the country, and that another important and material witness either could not, or would not come to the country, he must declare that, in his conscience, as a juryman, he could not pronounce the case to be one which would justify the second reading of the bill before their Lordships. (Hear, hear.) In proportion as the evidence by which the bill was to be supported had been weakened, in proportion was not only the justice, but even the expediency of passing it diminished. All the objections which he entertained against the measure on the score of jus tice, pressed on his mind with still greater force on the score of expediency. He did not wish to detain their Lordships by an enumeration of those objections, he was sure they would have the candour to allow that they were extremely numerous. There was one circumstance especially which he could not exclude from his consideration, and which he trusted their Lordships would not exclude from theirs, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the Noble Earl on the cross-bench, (the Earl of Lauderdale ;) he meant the probability, should the bill pass their Lordships, that it would be rejected in the other House of Parliament. This was a probability that, in his opinion, ought to be gravely weighed. He was the last man who would wish their Lordships to be influenced by any expression of feeling out of that House, which assumed the shape of popular clamour; but while he disclaimed all disposition to yield to any expression of that nature, he trusted their Lordships would allow him to observe, that the decided sense of the most important and most intelligent part of the community appeared to be hostile to the Bill before their Lord. ships. Under these circumstances, and with a view to the various considerations bearing upon the case, he implored their Lordships to pause in their course. He implored them to act according to the dictates of that benevolence which formed so valuable a feature of the English character. If there was any doubt in their minds as to the proof of the charges which had been preferred against her Majesty--if there appeared to be any deficiency in the evidence brought to their bar, he trusted that that consideration, coupled with the question as to the expediency of the proposed measure, would induce them to abstain from passing a measure, the consequence of which would, in his opinion, be of the most mischievous kind; consequences that threatened with destruction all our most venerable and sacred institutions. Such being his view of the subject, he could not, with any satisfaction to himself, withhold it from their Lordships, and he now, therefore, declared, that whenever the question for the second reading of the Bill should be put to their Lordships by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, he should feel it his duty to say-Not Content.—(Hear.) Lord Redesdale thought the proof was full, complete, and absolute; and could not conceive how there could be a doubt on the subject in the mind of any reasonable man. Nov. 3.-Earl Grosvenor warmly and decidedly opposed the Bill of Pains and Penalties; and declared that the evidence, in his opinion, entirely failed to support the charges against the Queen. He said, in the course of his speech, that he understood that when the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the commencement of this reign, carried the Liturgy into the King's closet, it was the King himself who struck out the name of the Queen. Earl Harewood declared that the evidence left doubts in his mind; and that, though he was not clearly convinced of the innocence of the Queen, he was clear as to the inexpediency of passing the Bill. The Earl of Donoughmore spoke in favour of the Bill. He could not see how it was possible to pronounce any other verdict than that of guilty of what had been proved regarding the cohabitation for five weeks under the tent. Earl Grey took a review of the evidence, and argued strongly against the Bill. It was not a little remarkable, he observed, that the principal witnesses in support of the prosecution, Majocchi, De Mont, Sacchi, and, he might add, Rastelli, that they were all four discarded servants of her Majesty; that three of them were dismissed in VOL. VII. November 1817, and Majocchi two months before that period; and that all the proof in the case was confined to the time these individuals were in the service of her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) From the time they left the Queen not an atom of proof, not the slightest imputation of improper conduct had been tendered against her Majesty. (Cheers.) With respect to the tent scene, so much relied upon by the advocates for the Bill, the Noble Lord contended that it afforded no proof of guilt. All the circumstances appeared to him consistent with the most perfect innocence of intention. Was it possible (he said) that two persons, who had been gratifying their passion all night, could not abstain from the same indulgence in the day; and that so extraordinary was the appetite, that they could not help exhibiting before the whole crew? It would appear as if Noble Lords had thought it to be her Majesty's practice to say, Now the fit is upon us, let down the curtain, every body knows what for. If adultery was to be carried on, why had not the part chosen for the entertainment been below the deck, where no interruption could have taken place, and where the sailors could not have had access, as they had at all times to the tent and other parts of the deck? Now, when the situation of persons on board ship was considered a place where the most delicate female was obliged to resign all ideas of delicacy-where, as Sir W. Scott said, all persons, male and female, were cooped up into miserable intimacy, and where every word and action were known to all on board-to suppose that a guilty intercourse had taken place under such circumstances was too much--to give a ver. dict to that effect (said his Lordship) was against common sense!(Hear, hear.) The Earl of Liverpool followed, and spoke in support of the Bill until the hour of adjournment. Nov. 4.-The Earl of Liverpool resumed his comment upon the evidence, and after a long and elaborate review, came to the conclusion that the Queen was guilty. Lord Arden said, he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and thus do all in his power to spare the Crown the odium which such a measure would cast upon it. Lord Falmouth declared his objection to the Divorce Clause, and he trusted it would be removed in the Committee, otherwise he could not give his vote for the second reading. Lord Harrowby said, although he had concurred in bringing the Bill before the House in its present shape, yet if any discussion took place in the Committee as to the propriety of omitting or retaining the Divorce Clause, he should oppose it.--(Hear, hear.) Lord Ellenborough was decidedly opposed to the second reading; to proceed fur3 N ther with it he thought impolitic and inexpedient; yet it could not necessarily be thought that all those who opposed the second reading were of opinion that the Queen was innocent.(Hear, hear.) The course the debate has taken imperatively called for some declaration of his opinion upon the point. "I cannot," said the Noble Lord, "declare the Queen innocent; I am unwilling to think her guilty; her guilt has been proved by the evidence at the Bar." His Lordship then proceeded to contend that a Bill of Pains and Penalties was impolitic, and that the disgrace and degradation the Queen had entailed upon herself and her high station, might be adequately punished and recorded by an address representing her conduct to the Crown. Lord Erskine resumed his speech against the Bill; and contended that the credibility of the principal witnesses for the prosecution had been destroyed. "I declare (said his Lordship) as my firm and unalterable opinion, that a cause of this nature, ushered in and pursued by witness after witness, perjured and exposed as in the instance before us, could not be supported in any of our Courts of Justice. Were I Judge in such a cause, I would not advise a Jury to find a verdict against a defendant, and were I a Juryman, I would not follow such an advice." Lord De Dunstanville and Lord Manners spoke in favour of the Bill. The Duke of Newcastle said he had been prevented by domestic business from being present during the defence; but he had read over the evidence, and his opinion was that the Queen was clearly, indisputably, and incontestibly guilty, not only of the alleged adultery, but of conduct in other respects disgraceful and degrading. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued with considerable warmth against the Bill. With regard to the scenes on board the polacca, he could not help regretting, that her Majesty should have placed herself in a situation in which, though in his mind there was no sufficient proof of her guilt to authorize the passing of the present Bill, yet it was impossible for her Majesty to prove her innocence. Nov. 6.-The Marquis of Lansdowne concluded his speech by stating that the removal of the Divorce Clause would be an aggravation of the penalties of the Bill on her Majesty, instead of a mitigation. The Duke of Northumberland spoke in favour of the Bill. Lord Howard, Lord Enniskillen, Lord Calthorpe, and the Marquis of Stafford, spoke severally against the Bill. Lord De Clifford was perfectly satisfied from the evidence that her Majesty had been guilty of an adulterous intercourse with a person in the lowest condition of life, and of great grossness and indecency in other respects. At the same time, he could not forget that her conduct might have been of a very different complexion, had she been placed in different circum. stances with reference to the Sovereign. He could not forget the unfortunate situation in which her Majesty was at a former period placed in this country. It was not probable that, under any circumstances, her Majesty would remain in this country, where she could not expect to have very agreeable or comfortable society; and therefore the rejection of the Bill would not operate injuriously in that respect. Being decidedly hostile to the measure, and being persuaded that it would be rejected in some stage or other, he thought the sooner it was got rid of the better, and should therefore vote against the second reading. Lord Grantham, although he was not convinced of the Queen's innocence, would oppose the Bill. The Earls of Blessington and Gosford also opposed it. The Duke of Atholl spoke in favour of the Bill. The Duke of Somerset opposed it. Lord Grenville spoke at great length in favour of the Bill.-In the view which he took of all the various parts of the case, he thought it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. In coming to this conclusion, he did not exclude the expediency of the measure from his view, nor did he overlook the present alarming state of the country; but all the eloquent appeals which he had heard had not produced in his mind the conviction that there would be less public mischief occasioned that the public evil which was now hanging over the country was more likely to be averted by the sudden termination of the present proceedings, than by the second reading of this Bill. (Heur.) The Earl of Rosslyn argued against the Bill. At one time it was a Bill of Relief to the Sovereign, at another it was a State proceeding, in which the State was the prosecutor that led him to consider the character of the Queen as connected with the country. As Queen Consort she was entitled to certain privileges and to cer tain protection, which it was the object of the Bill to withdraw from her-that was to be done at the instance of the State. Now, he wished to know whether the State was entitled to do that?-What was the conduct of the State towards her Majesty? Was she to be treated as the wife of the State? If so, were they to forget the acts of the State ?-the encouragement that had been given to the Queen by the State ?-the Address of the House of Commons to her Majesty, condemning the preceeding against her as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the nation ?-the offer of L. 50,000 a-year that had been made to her Majesty at St Omer's, and a free licence to go wherever she thought fit; an offer which came from persons at the head of the State, from persons who had been in possession of all the facts against her? Were those things to be forgotten? And if acted upon, would they not operate as an entire bar to the course proposed? Ministers had in their possession the charges against the Queen. They had the knowledge of the facts, and with that knowledge they yet offered the Queen a splendid income. She rejected that income, and they turned round to prosecute her, in order to preserve the honour of the country. It was too monstrous, too insulting to the public understanding; if not felt in that House, it would most certainly be felt and understood by the people. The great body of the people being favourable to the Queen, feeling for her misfortunes, might be rendered desperate by the severity of her treatment desperate, too, against the higher classes of society. He hoped that their Lordships would have the wisdom and the virtue to avoid so calamitous an issue. If they should degrade the Queen by their judgment, they would make her the rallying point to the disaffected they would expose the country to danger the Throne to degradation they would risk the character of that House, in times when it was so necessary that it should stand high in the opinion of the people. A division now took place, when the Lord Chancellor declared the numbers to be, For the Second Reading of the Bill... 123 Against it......... 95 Majority in favour of Second Reading 28 List of the Majority and Minority on the Second Reading of the Bill. For the Bill.-Dukes of York, Clarence, Beaufort, Rutland, Newcastle, Northumberland, Wellington, Atholl, Montrose. Marquisses Conyngham, Anglesea, Camden, Northampton, Exeter, Headfort, Thomond, Cornwallis, Buckingham, Lo thian, Queensberry, Winchester. Earls Harcourt, Brooke and Warwick, Portsmouth, Pomfret, Macclesfield, Ayles. ford, Balcarras, Home, Coventry, Rochfort, Abingdon, Shaftesbury, Cardigan, Winchelsea, Stamford, Bridgewater, Huntingdon, Westmoreland, Harrowby, St Germain's, Brownlow, Whitworth, Verulam, Cathcart, Mulgrave, Lonsdale, Orford, Manvers, Rosse, Nelson, Powis, Limerick, Donoughmore, Belmore, Mayo, Longford, Mount Cashell, Kingston, Liverpool, Digby, Mount Edgecumbe, Abergavenny, Aylesbury, Bathurst, Chatham. Viscounts Exmouth, Lake, Sidmouth, 11 Melville, Curzon, Sidney, Falmouth, Hereford. Barons Somers, Rodney, Middleton, Napier, Colville, Gray, Saltoun, Forbes, Prudhoe, Harris, Ross, Meldrum, Hill, Combermere, Hopetoun, Gambier, Manners, Ailsa, Lauderdale, Sheffield, Redesdale, St Helen's, Northwick, Bolton, Eldon, Bayning, Carrington, De Dunstanville, Broderick, Stewart of Garlies, Stuart of Castle Stuart, Douglas, Grenville, Suffield, Montague, Gordon. Archbishops of Canterbury and Tuam. Bishops of London, St Asaph, Worcester, St David's, Ely, Chester, Peterborough, Llandaff, Bristol, Cork and Ross. Against the Bill.-Dukes of Glocester, Somerset, Brandon, Argyll, Leinster, Grafton, Portland, Devonshire, Bedford, Richmond, (St Albans absent.) Marquisses Stafford and Lansdowne. Earls Delawarr, Ilchester, Darlington, Egremont, Fitzwilliam, Stanhope, Cowper, Dartmouth, Oxford, Rosebery, Jersey, Albemarle, Plymouth, Essex, Thanet, Denbigh, Suffolk, Pembroke, Derby, Blessington, Morley, Minto, Harewood, Grey, Gosford, Romney, Rosslyn, Caledon, Enniskillen, Farnham, Carrick, Carnarvon, Mansfield, Fortescue, Grosvenor, Hillsborough. Viscounts Granville, Anson, Duncan, Hood, Torrington, Bolingbroke. Barons Ashburton, Bagot, Walsingham, Dynevor, Foley, Hawke, Ducie, Holland, Grantham, King, Belhaven, Darnley, Say and Sele, Howard, Zouch, Clinton, Dacré, Audley, De Clifford, Breadalbane, Erskine, Arden, Ellenborough, Alvanley, Loftus, Fitzgibbon, Calthorpe, Dawnay, Yarborough, Dundas, Selsey, Mendip, Auckland, Gage, Fisherwick, Amherst, Kenyon, Sherborne, Berwick. Archbishop of York. Nov. 7.-Lord Dacre presented the following Protest of her Majesty against the decision of their Lordships. PROTEST. "CAROLINE REGINA. "To the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament Assembled. "The Queen has learned the decision of the Lords upon the Bill now before them. In the face of Parliament, of her family, and of her country, she does solemnly protest against it. "Those who avowed themselves her prosecutors have presumed to sit in judg ment on the question between the Queen and themselves. Peers have given their voices against her, who had heard the whole evidence for the charge, and absented themselves during her defence. "Others have come to the discussion from the Secret Committee, with minds biassed by a mass of sianders, which her enemies have not dared to bring forward to the light. "The Queen does not avail herself of her right to appear before the committee, for to her the details of the measure must be a matter of indifference; and, unless the course of these unexampled proceedings should bring the bill before the other branch of the Legislature, she will make no reference whatever to the treatment experienced by her during the last twentyfive years. "She now most deliberately, and before God, asserts, that she is wholly innocent of the crime laid to her charge, and she awaits with unabated confidence the final result of this unparalleled investigation. (Signed) "CAROLINE REGINA." Lord Lauderdale and several other Noble Lords objected to the receiving of the protest, considering it as a violent attack upon the character of the House; but after some discussion, it was agreed to receive it and record it upon the journals, as the address of her Majesty, containing what she had further to say in her defence. The House then resolved into a committee on the bill, when a verbal alteration of little consequence was made on the preamble, on the motion of Lord Liverpool. Lord Ellenborough moved to omit the words" Adulterous Intercourse," which was negatived. Lord Carnarvon proposed to introduce a clause to the following effect:-"That, subsequent to her Majesty's return, she had refused L. 50,000 a-year of the public money, which had been proffered to her as a homage by both Houses of Parliament." The preamble was then carried, and the House proceeded to discuss the divorce clause, which, after a desultory debate, that was continued next day, the 8th, was negatived by a division of 129 to 62. On this question all the Cabinet Ministers voted in the minority; and these who were unfriendly to the bill voted for the clause, on the ground that it would operate as a clog on the bill, and prevent its passing the House. The Bishops of Cork, Worcester, Gloucester, Chester, Peterborough, St David's, St Asaph, and Ely; and the Archbishops of York and Tuam, voted for excluding the divorce clause. The latter of these delivered his sentiments on the subject as follows: "My Lords, It is with the utmost reluctance that I now present myself to your Lordships, and should not do so had I not been so pointedly alluded to by the Noble and Learned Lord who last addressed your Lordships yesterday. So much has been said on the construction of the 32d verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, that although my mind has long been made up to vote against the divorce clause of the present bill, from my own view of the very verse that I have mentioned, I shall not trouble your Lord But if I can show ships farther upon it. that the illustrious Lady, the subject of this bill, has been put away by her husband and also if I can show, from numerous texts of the Holy Scripture, a solemn denunciation by the Lord himself, for such putting away,-I shall show, my Lords, what is in itself sufficient to make me vote against the divorce clause of the bill, which, if not the immediate object, will in fact release the King from his marriage contract, and leave him at liberty to marry again. My Lords, it is in my opinion satisfactorily proved, that this Lady was put away by the letter of her husband, which has been received by your Lordships during the present investigation. (Hear, hear.) For the denunciation of the Lord for such divorce I will refer your Lordships to the second chapter of the book of Malachi ; there, my Lords, it will be seen, that for literally putting away, the face of the Lord was turned away from the people; he regarded not their offerings. The halls of the temples, even to the altars, were filled with lamentations of the women imploring Hea ven, and calling down vengeance on their heads. The prophet establishes his charge against them, by calling it a crying sin, and reminding them of the first institution of marriage:"Take heed, said the God of Israel, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth, for the Lord hateth putting away."-1 had no wish to be in attendance on this trial; I stand before your Lordships an unwilling judge in this cause; and nothing but force, but the heavy penalty by which you have compel led me to come, could have induced me to attend this distressing investigation. My Lords, I repeat that I have been brought here by compulsion; for I have been obliged to leave important duties, which no man on earth but myself could perform, and which have now been suspended for the last three months on account of my absence. But having attended your Lordships' order, and having paid every attention to the evidence on both sides given at your Lordships' bar, and also to the statements of Counsel-both in support of the bill and for the defence of her Majesty, and to the eloquent speeches of the Noble Lords who have taken various views of the subject:-having, I say, my Lords, heard all the evidence, and attended this proceeding every day-nay, every hour-Ì might almost say every minute since its commencement, I voted for the second reading of the bill; because there was no other measure before the House on which I could act, that would show, I thought, a clear, satisfactory, and irresistible case had been made out. To the divorce clause, however, of this bill, I never can reconcile myself; and should it go through the Committee as part of the measure, I shall not vote for the |