Star. — London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

I i • . \ ~ t . . . - !a-nth; it musk Ni me one of the forms which I have described. At rate, it must not retain that in which it is at present moulded. My Lords, I do not like the introducion of levity on a subject of this grave stature; but I declare, that when I first heard this Bill read I thought myself in a Theatre, and fancied that the various parts were got up by differ ent performers. -One seemed to me to say, • Her Majesty engaged in her service a foreigner of low station ; another, • A most unbecoming and degra ding intimacy commenced between her Royal High ness and Bartolomo Bergand ;' a third, Her Royal • highness placed him in high and confidential situa tions about her Royal highness's person ; a fourth, Het-Royal fliglintss conducted herself in a man ner that proved she was wholly unmindful of her 'exalted rank and station ; and then came Mts. Can -dour, implying, in the phrase,' and in other respects,' a something - which even her kindness could not ex tenuate. Really, my Lords, it appears to me that we are acting the School for Scandal, and that this solemn inquiry in which we are engaged, is nothing more than a solemn farce. It appears to me that there leis been a kind of Malroli9, expelled from his stew ardhip by the combination of, the servants, with whom he has quarrelled, and who have determined to wreak their vengeance on him,- although the most rerson in their mistress s household. 'What we complain of, my Lords, is the absence of slistinct and definite charge, and the multiplication ele',rcunistitriees, from which an inference is intended to be drawn; but against which no defence can be runic. \\hat we complain of, my Lords, is, that a motive is held out to your Lordships fisr passing this wbich would be inolierative it) a Court of Jus t/se or on an Impeachment. In a Court of Justice a Jury would be sworn to determine whether the distinct fact alleged had been actually committed or not. In the case of an Impeachment distinct articles have been exhibited, and every one of your ineclships would have been severally called on to declare, upon-his personal honour, whether or not he believed that the specific charges were true? But, try Lords, under the present circumstances it is dif beak—oat-, it is impossible to say on. what principle your Leidships will individually be guided in yeur decision. Some Noble Lords, mho may be satisfied that no adulterous intoecurse' has taken place, may nevertheless entertain such high opinions with respect to familiarity,' as to be induced to convict her Ma . jetty,- and to think it therefore necessary to pass this Bill. My Lords, I know that all the noble persons present who are lawyers will declare, We must have the adultery distinctly and unequivocally proved. But there may be other Noble Lords who may be of opinion that a strong surmise will be suf ficient. What security, therenne ' can I possess of a just and legal decision? The Law Lords, from their professioual habits, I may be sure of; but how can I tell on what. other Noble Lords may be pleased to found their verdict? In an action for criminal conversation, tried in a t'rintinal Court, the Judge would air, • I must have the fact of the adultery distinctly proved,'andi it were not distinctly proved he nould direct the Jury to acquit the defendant.— But the question is, how we, her Majesty's Counsel, are so to gage and measure sour Lordships opinions *as to be able to do array with the stations impressions which this ilia is calculated to make on your Lord ships minds? Some of the allegations in this Bill may. appear to your Lordships to be true. Time may have boat frequent familiaxities,' as they ate called. There may have tws frequent sittings at table Loge then, Thor may have beeufrequent appearances of intimacy dining the continuance of mutual hardships and difficulties, which, under other circumstances would be improper. But hew ate we to know what evidence on such. subjects will be satisfactory to all vain- Lordships? *SCII:C of your Lordhips may be di Booed to convict our Illusuious Client, on the grotsnif of 4 unbecoming and degrading intimacy others on Ler having advanted the individual impli eJted with her to a high situation in her Royal I lighinst'a them/told: others on her having con trried UpOU him a pretended Older of knighthood others on her having' received into her service many of his nesir ];very Noble Lord may dis cover sonic particular basis on which to justify his . vete; and no two Peers may pronounce on the same pound. There may even be some of your Lordships tempted by views of expediency alone to pass the measure,. We all know that when great interosts• clash—when the highest characters of the realm are opposed to one another, this language ujll be held— this lauguage has been held—that as oae of the pare ties must be displaced, right or wrong, the one less important to the general weal trust give way. One cf the public prints gas even dared to say, that if your Lordships do not feel justified in treating her nlajesty as a criviiital, the public interest requires that she should be made a ;nadir ! Fat am 1, my lords, from insinuating that such an argument cab - Live any weight on your Lordship' minds; but the docuir.e has been avowed, and we can therefore have tau security wish respect to the extent of its influence. 11 1 am asked, -what course of proceeding would be preferable to the present? I reply, that it is in the s-ower of the House of Commons to call on your i ordships, - by an Impeachment, to enter uponan in quiry into this subject. Certainly a Grand Jury could not investigate the nature of any acts alleged to have been committed at Milan. But your Lordships are net-piectuded from such an investigation. An Im peachment would be a trial. A Bill of Pains and .Peualties is. no trial. It is calculated to defame the accused. It is calculated to excite suspicicn against yew- Lordship—.unjust, I allow, but certainly not unnatural;—sitspicion, which, if the present pro ceeding be persevered in, the Public will think they have a right to entertain. My Lords, in the most soleunt stautier I disclaim any, the slightest imputa tion, ea this high tribunal. I revue it front the depth of my bent If on any v ermi n '' , i t should hap. raw appear to be influenced by a sinister motive, I avouhl rather submit to that inconvenience than cast _ ny o dium Off. its general administration of justice. but it the p u blic see the legislature of the country, on a great and important occasion, depart horn the prin ; plea uf justice, and volunteer the support of charges, I nch as those which this Bill exhibits, this time uill male v‘ hen it will be difficult for the warmest advo cates of our Constitution to justify youl. Lordships cioduct. I will not repeat the remarks oilezed to your airdships y es unit ay on this Bi 11 by my Learned Friend. Le peucectfing as my Learned Irieud justly ob - • : served, a 'proceeding in which-the accusers, the Jury, ' and the Legislature, are combined in one. In refer ence to the . tneasuie of former times, to which my Learned Friehd alluded (and against which so able a Protest is entered on your Lordships' Journals), I will say,. iliif Ishauld consider' the honour of the Peerage dearly bought, were it to be on the condi tion Of *finding my ancestor's name in the majority by which that measure . was carried. Let your Lord ships consider the evil consequences with reference to your own dignity, which must be •the result of per- severing in a departure from the principle which 1 am advocating. bra judicial proceeding this House ought alone to pronounce. What will be the conse quence of your Lordships sharing your high func tions with others? Your Lordships examine evi dence on oath, and you pronounce your opinions upon your honour. If, after passing sentence on her Majesty, by acquiescing in the present Bill, you send it down to the lower House, it will there be exposed to all the indignity of popular clamour. In that House witnesses are not examined on oath, and yet they may be subjected to all the scrutiny to which 658 Gentlemen, of various habits and tempers, may choose to expose them. I have cettainly no incli nation to disparage that House of Parliament; but I cannot forget that it has beeir said by one of their most diainguished Members, that they never en tered into any inquiry but they disgraced themselves. Instead of expressing their own unbiassed judgment, every petty Corporation will be entitled to instruct its Iteoresentatives on the subject of this Bill. But, my Lords, there is yet a third estate. The King must become party to this proceeding.; the King and the House of Commons will share with your Lordships that which has hitherto been considered the brightest and most valuable of your privileges. The King, in all cases a formidable auxiliary to a' cause which he espouses, must, in the present in stance, be an overpowering one. Let us examine, my Lords, the part which the King - has hitherto taken in this affair. Has the King complained, or has he held his peace? If his Majesty has held his peace, will your Lordships set the first precedent, since the Canon Law, of a dissolution of a marriage without any complaint from the parties to it? if his Majesty has been the complainant—if he has set all the machinery going which is now in such terrible ' operation—with what face can your Lordships call'' on the Kir.g, who, by that complaint, has already las emphatically pronounced upon the subject as if he had spoken from the throne, to decide on a ques tion' in which his dearest wishes are so deeply in volved ? How can your Lordships call on the third estate to pronounce on that on which it has two ' nounced already? My Lords, permit me again to say, in favour of my Royal Client, that in now at i tempting to avert what is miscalled the trial of her Majesty, there is no departure whatever from con : sistency. We ask for a trial, but we ask for a fair i trial. We do not wish for a trial founded on scan i cialous imputations sealed up in a bag, and hinted at for the purpose of poisoning the public mind. We do not wish for a trial in which Judges are not war ranted in examining witnesses on oath. We do not wish for a trial in which the ultimate sentence, is to be pronounced by him whose interest it is to con demn us. Nut only is there no inconsistency on the ' part of her Majesty in endeavouring to avert this dis -1 gusting inquiry, but the effort is due from her to a State in atria she is now the first subject, and of which she may one day be the Sovereign. She owes it to the counti y, she owes it to morality, she owes it to justice, she on es it to all those principles on which society is founded, and by which it Coheres and is maintained. But, my Lords, is this Bill a Bill of Divorce? Is it anything else? The last four lines of the Bill would be perfectly adequate to the description of its object. That object is but too ob vious. No man can be so blind as not to perceive that the whole purpose of the Bill is to' release his Majesty from those ties which bind him to his pre sent wife. If; however, this Bill were nominally a Bill of Div-ogre, the husband must be here to be examined upon oath, if you should think fit, as to the manner in which he has conducted himself towards his wife; in order to ascertain whedler she had lived apart from him, or abroad, and ether circumstances of that nature. In the system of divoice, which has unfor tunately increased so much of late, there is this se leitrity-;--that no husband can successfully appear at' your Lordships' Bar, without shewing that his own conduct has been free from reproach. If a Bill of Divorce were . preferred before your Lordships, in which it should appear that the wife at the time of her marriage was young and inexperienced—that the came from .a foreign 'country with prospects of splen dour and happiness as great as any female ever con templated—that she was suddenly assailed by every circumstance of irritation and injury—that she found her - husband surrounded by Mistresses—that the birth of a child, instead of being the pledge of affec. Lion between herself and her consort, seemed to be . the signal for their 'total separation—that in'a few months she was banished from the conjugal roof—that she was' immediately and vigilantly watched by hosts of spies and informers—that a' Report was called for on her conduct—that after a full 'but ex-pt rte in quiry she experienced a full acquittal, and was again received into the embraces of the father of her hus band, by whom she had never been desertedthat at a further period she was induced to leave the coma- - trys—that an experiment was then made, whether that a hich had not succeeded in Engla:id might succeed in Italy—that the charges against her in this country, where the witnesses weie known, baring been blown to atoms, it was tried what could be done by means of unknown witnesses in a strange land, who, if they could not convict 'her of guilt, might at least asperse and blacken her character—that she had been five-and-twenty years separated from her husband, leaving the justinference that he had abdi cated his rights by neglecting that care and protec tion, to which, as his wife, she was entitled ; 1 ask, your Lordships; whether, under all those ciretsm- - stances, you would hear such a case at your Bar? I will not ask with what feelings such a husband as I have described could come to your Lordships Bar— here I stop. But this I am bound to state-a-that if this proceeding is to go en, I claim for my Illus ' /lions Client, her full and ample right to every spe cies of recrimination. To deprive a 'wife against a bom 2 divorce is sued; ht her right of recrimination, is to give an undue advantage to a husband who may be unjustly aiienated from her. if such a husband has, by unkindness, driven his wile Irom her home, •. . • • . • istio a Situation in which she is neneceisiarn) , subjected to' suspicion, besought not tble allowed io take ad= vantage of his wrongs, by being protected from all inquiry into his own conduct. I therefore feel that I. have a right to state, shortly, what I conceive her Ma jesty's rights to be on the present occasion. I think that the right of recrimination is the most important right that a Queen Consort can possess on such a proceeding as the present. And I think further, that if any doubts exist on this point, the more they are sifted, the more surely and speedily will they be re-' moved. Unless, indeed, your Lordships are pre pared to say, that those rules of morality which are supposed binding in humble life, are to be removed altogether from the higher classes of society—Unless ytur Lordships are prepared to say, that where the situation of the party is most elevated the example is to be the leastand that where cruelty has been most inflicted the greatest correctness and propriety of conduct is to he observed. In all the previous cases of Bills of Pains and Penalties they have been defended on the ground of State necessity ; and it is. curious to observe; that in some of these cases the very contrary of the charge has been proved. In the year 1700 a Bill of Pains and Penalties was in-' troduced into the House of Commons against a per son named Knight, for having forged a certain in strument: This Bill passed the House of Commons almost tiy acclamation. In the House of Lords the feelings were different. In that House the votes were equal—the Duke of Leeds gave the casting vote against the Bill, and it was of course lost. The in dividual was afterwards tried fa:- the same offence in Guildhall, and acquitted ! Thus, by the vote of the•Duke.of Leeds, the Parliament was saved from the disgrace of having passed an unjust sentence on an innocent •person-:— . from having given a vote in direct contradiction to the verdict of a Court of Jus tice. The same House of Lords, though they refused to find the Earl of Strafford guilty when that Noble man was impeached, subsequently passed a Bill of Attainder against him, under which he forfeited his life. Is it possible, my Lords, to quote a stronger case than this ?—[The Honourable and Learned Gentleman here quoted the observations of Hume on the death of the Earl of Strafford, where he states that the fate of that Nobleman ought to be a lesson of caution to all future Monarchs and Governments in their proceedings against any individuals, private or public.l—Your Lordships must see the danger which arise from any deviation from the clear line marked out by the laws and constitution of the country. In the cases of Kelly, Lords Rochester, and Lovat, this is to be particularly observed. The latter was accused on written depositions, and the writer was then dead ; his Lordship was not allowed an opportunity of falsifying the testimony produced against him. So that, on that occasion, he was re fused what must have been granted to him had living witnesses been brought against him—an opportunity of contradicting their testimony. If this Bill is to Le supported on the ground of state necessity, then I suppose the party accused must be got rid of, whe ther guilty or inrttcent. No regard must be paid to the justice or injustice of the case. But if this exigent state necessity exists, your Lordships have a right to have it clearly demonstrated to you. You surely have a right also to consider the danger which is likely to attend such a proceeding. In speaking of danger, I beg your Lordships to consider that I do not, even in the most distant manner, allude to what is at this moment passing, or to what may hereafter pass, out of doors. I know that your Lordships are actuated by that great ma.xim—fiet justitia ruat eve luyn. .I know that, happen what may, your Lord ships are determined to do what you conceive to be your duty. But the danger to which 1 allude is of a different nature. I allude to the imminent danger in which such a measure as that now befoie your Lordships will place tlfe Monarchy of this country. Suppose for a moment that this Bill were passed, and that her Majesty were to be divorced from the King, and degraded to any extent. In such an event, if the King were to marry again, and have a male child, are there not many, very many in this coun try, who would entertain doubts of the validity of such second marriage, and who consequently would question the right of that child to succeed to the . Throne? I know that it would be ridiculous in me, as a lawyer, to dispute the power of an Act cf Par liament; I am aware that the lineal descent has been regulated by Acts of Parliatlient, on various occa sions ; but I allude to public opinion, by which Par liament itseil has been sometimes controuled, and I ask what is -there not to be feared to this country from a disputed succession? The title of Henry IV.' to the Crown was recognized by Act of Parliament, as was also the title of Henry VI. In the sante year, the title of Edward IV. was recognized, and nine I years after, Henry VI. was again recalled. I next I come to Henry VIII. That Monarch's marriage with Catherine was declared illegal; and Mary was, in 1534, excluded by Act of Parliament from the succession. After this came his marriage with Anne Boleyn. But, as it generally happened that the King, some how or other, got tired of his wives in a short time, that marriage was also set aside by Act of Parliament, in the year 1536; and both Mary, the fruit of the last, and Elizabeth, the fruit of the present one, were declared illegitimate. Next came the marriage with Lady Jane Seymour, which in four years after was annulled. But it ap-1 pears that King Henry never got rid of one wife until' he had got another in view. On the 28th of July, 1540,1 e divorced Anne of - Cleves, and married Queen Catherine Howard. Here we have in one reign a succession of Acts of Parliament palpably in contra dietionao each other. I need not add, that both the children of Henry reigned successively, * though tl , - succession had been previously changed in favour of Lady Jane Grey. But, supposing that there was to be no fear of a disputed succession, still I would reier your Lordships to what took place in ]i)o9. 1 do not wish to' revive unpleasant recollections, but I feel it due to my Illustrious Client to revert to that period. If .vicious and licentious conduct be sufficient to re move her Majesty from the Throne, then I say that is an equally strong argument for removing a Prince also. Then we have only to send for the evidence and letter which were delivered in M 9, and it might be said that others were guilty of all the crimes charged against her Majesty—nay, much more. ' ,then, this. precedent were once established, the ques tion would then ire, not whether this or that Prince was the next to the Crown, but whethcr.any,one could be found to whom it could not be said, litlievetyla,bseaetf'ter . . •- - • . s n ix gu y i ca lty rs org i ro s s i s t a t n o d b l e ie b et e i l ti ie o v us ed eo t n h d a t t tc h t e u r • l , kh fa in . having been left abroad in d torte of exile. and beggary, was to be exposed to such a trial ? If measure of this kind can reach a Queen Consort; why not a Queen in her right? There he no clause in the Bill which would prevent het Majesty .from reigning over these realms. She vas nearly Ore! to the Royal Family in blood, and /here was no strong improbability of her coming one day to the Throne: - There are at this moment the same number of person!' (fourteen) between her Majesty and the Throne, as there was between William and George the First.— , ;, If then a proceeding like the present is to be Sanc= tioned, we shall hare nothing bnt a succession of _Green Bags, containing -similar charges 2gaknst the gown or its 'next heirs. I should have thought; that instead of using the authority under e hich this mei; sure has been introduced to give a sanction to these slanders, your Lordships would have manifested a disposition to put down those calumnies (the more especially such as are levelled again t persons in high authority), the dissemination of which has been for such a length of time the crying disgrace of • this country. if a proceeding of this nature is to be ens tertained by your Lordships against the Queen, you are equally competent to entertain a similar . cite against the Heir Apparent or the Heir Presumptive to the Throne. If one Peer can introduce a measute to uncrown the Queen, what is to prevent another Peer from introducing a measure to uncrosYn the King? I think that such a measure could he carried on the same principle; and further, I welt know- , that public opinion, which, after all, disposes of kings doms, and crowns, and sceptres, will take its bias from such proceedings, and will operate, and fatally to the Monarchy of this country. There are, I• am aware, perions who say that the Queen will receive as much justice as any other person similarly situated. But I contend, that no other subject can be placed in the same situation as her Majesty now is. I say, that the precedent established by this Bill will reach other Princes. I know not whether, from what passed oh the 6th of June, there be not persons busily scraping to gether anecdotes of all the Princes of the Blood= to serve as matter of future accusation. If any .person wished to undermine the Constitution and Monarchy of this country, they could not go about it - more surely and effectively than by a measure such as that now bvfore your Lordships. , Will not, I ask, the uncrowning of the Queen lead to.the uncrown. ing of the King ? . I 'ask your Lordships, whether you are not aware that this was the case at a;1 tithes? —lt is a remarkable fact, that the atrocities of the French Revolution commenced by heaping calum nies on, and offer ing indignities to the Queen of that country. Your Lei-if-hips, doubtless, recollect the splendid culogium pronounced by that great. man, Mr. Burke, upon the Queen of France, that illus trious Lady who fell a victim to a lawless populace. There is another point toohich I beg to call the at tention of your Lordships. It has been strictly laid down on former occasions, that man iage was both a civil and a religious contract. I trust your Lord ships will reconsider your opinions on this point, and allow Dr. Lushingo n, who is so mudi more ma-ter of this part of the subject, to address you upon it.— But if your Lordships should refuse to do so, I must then appeal to the flight Reverend the Prelates to interfere for the preservation of the sanctity of the marriage contract. I trust your Lordships will, above all things, seriously weigh the balance of evil which is likely to arise from this measure. I trust also, that you will r o ot yourselves over l( ok any nat ter which is calculated to injure, of produce a dis regard for the marriage tie. Look, my Lords, to the moral feelings of the country,• which this measure is calculated to outrage. Observe that this Bill can , not be productive of any good—but must, be the result what it may, produce infieite harm to the coun try. I must here, on the part of her Majesty, pro. test against any proceeding by Bill of Pains and Pe nalties, when the scene is laid in a foreign and dis tant land, when the inquiry is to be into a life of more than six years, and when the accused has been refused a list of the witnesses against her. This last refusal placed her Majesty in a worse situation than any person taking his trial in one of the lower Courts. The request made to your Lordships was, in fact, that thisgreat principle might be preserved, but mo dified according to your Lordships pleasure, so as to avoid inconvenience. This, however, has been re fused. In the case of a charge in the lower Courts, witnesses appeared before a Grand Jury, and the accused had an opportunity of ascertaining the cha racter of the persons by whom the accusation was to be supported. But her Majesty has been denied • this right. Therefore, instead of having received any favour at the hands of your Lordships,. she has every riht to complain. Again, I say, that .in her Majesty s name I protest against this Bill of Pains and Penalties in a case which admits of impeachment. -I also protestagainss your Lordships not discharging the duties imposed on you, as well as your exercise of a power not contemplated by the Constitution. Your Lordships may meet with the co-operation cf the other branch of the Legislature ; but be it re membered, that you may also .meet with its check and controul. 1 must here guard myself from any imputation, fi'om what I have said, that either I or my Learned Friends are declining the conttst. we do not shrink item the combat, we are ready and anxious to meet it. Here I feel it my duty to state, that I owe to my Illustrious Client an apology, for having, in the line of argument which I have beea obliged to take, allowed even a possibility of the truth of the charges against her. I feel a perfec: conviction of her innocence ; I feel also, that there cannot be brought .igainst her anything, which, to on honourable mind, will be a proof of her guilt. tot concluding, I beg to say, my Lords, that wl4:l4wr: may be enacted—whatever may be done, by the er erticns of any individual, by the perversion of truth. or through the pet iary of witnesses— v, hatever be the consequences which may follow, and whatever she may suffer—l will, for one, never withdraw from her those sentiments of dutiful homage which I owe to her rank, to her situation, to 'her sorerior mind, to her great and Royal heart ; nor, my Lords, will I ever pay to any one who may usurp her Majesty', station, that respect which belongsalone to her whom the laws of Goo and man have made the Consort ui the king, and the Queen of these kingdoms." Dexiotra having •finished sneaking, her MA. .3 EST y, accompanied by Lads- Anlasio.rox, rusk from her wet, and euitted the i,ssoase for a f!iett i