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

I Y The ATTORNEY Gat CRAL thin rose. He could not refrain from observing, after his Learned Friend had aidressed their Lordships with so much ability in this stage of the proceeding, that he thought they could have no reason to regret the election they had made subsequently to the objection which was taken yesterday ; because (undoubtedly, in consequence of the license with which their Lordships had indulged them upon the present occasion) they had bad all the advantage which they possibly could have obtained in this stage of the proceedings, by statements of t'acts, which, although they were all introduced into :his part of the case as facts, he must contend were sot yet founded on the evidence before their Lord ships; by,assumptions, gratuitously made, and , by calumnies—(an expression by which he meant not the .lightest disrespect to his Learned Friends, but he 'nun repeat it)—by calumnies, unsupported, at pitilb .cct, by anything but their own assertion—(Cries srelk out!' from scveral Peers).—He found himself, • t 2refore, placed in this most difficult of all situa- I: .ss, prepared as he was, and had come there to y. sre the only question which he understood to be ss ore their Lordships—namely, the principle of this BJ. He was now driven, by the course which his Learned Friends had taken, to consider the facts of the case as they had chosen to represent them. He stood, therefore, under this disadiantage—that while their assertions would go forth to their Lordships and to the world as having . been made by them from their own knowledge of the facts, he . svas not, in this stage, at liberty to contradict them--(flear, hear!). With respect, however, to' what had been stated, he 1,4,1 only to observe, that nine-tenths of what their Lordships had heard was foreign from the question ts he discussed, and, he felt, could not, would not, make a deep impression on their Lordships. The cssstion to be considered was, whether they would c .ssrtain the grave and solemn, but di sgustints charges F: ;erred . against her Majesty; or whethert . hey were :p tred to say, that, notwithstanding the proof to i)2 aliuced, there was something in this Bill that it os s h: not to be followed up by the enactments con :siscd in the preamble? This was his view of the .:ne-sion before their Lordships. But see how it had ' sea argued by his Learned Friends. They had or , e-a .1 the question as if the preamble had not been z yeti, and yet they had indulged themselves in taking of spies, informers, perjured and suborned ss:s.ssszs! When those witnesses had given their I....simony, the time would come to speak of their c:.aracter, and the nature of their testimony. This hiss of proceeding was, in fact., nothing more or less tLan tampering with their Lordships feelings, and sisn!aless it must have made an impression upon th:ir minds. His Learned Friends had also placed another difficulty in his way: they had found fault %salt the framing of the preamble of the Bill, and not snisfied with that, had gone through its whole history. They attacked the proceedings of the Secret Com mittee, and went on to spew the disadvantage under which her Majesty laboured, in consequence of not having her case brought before a Grand Jury. But their Lordships had decided that this was the only mode of proceeding ; they had decided, that the crime with which her Majesty was accused, though if committed in England would be Treason, could not be so construed, having been committed abroad, cud with a foreigner. They bad in fact decided, that her Majesty was not amenable to any of our Courts of Justice, and that this was the only mode of proceeding which could be instituted. Their Lordships instituted this inquiry on the Report of a Secret Committee; this, it was urged, iieprived her Majesty of the benefit derived from a Grand Jury. list did the*Committee find her Majesty guilty of asy one charge? They merely said, that from what had been . laid before them, they were of opinion that there was serious ground of charge against her Ma: jesty, affecting the dignity of the Crown, and they recommended to the House to proceed to an in quiry. See, then, how the arguments of his Learned Friends were applied—first, they found fault with the preamble of the Bill ; and, secondly, they qpar relied with the measure itself, which their Lordships, having read it the first time, had sanctioned. It Was said the Committee reported on unvouched documents. lie had no means of knowing upon what statements the Secret Committee reported, nor did he know from whence his Learned Friends drew their infor mation, but he was much mistaken if the Select Com mittee had not had the sworn testimony of witnesses in support of the itatements laid before them. But whether they had or had not such testimony was not row the question; their Lordships had decided upon that Report, and that decision could 'cot now be called in question. Next, he had heard a most sin gular and extraordinary attack, coming, as it did, from a Lawyer, such as he knew his Learned Friend (Mr. Denman) to be. He (Mr. Denman) urged that th: preamble of the Bill contained matter that is not inserted in bills of indictment at common law; that it, in fact, contained the evidence upon which the charge was to be supported. Did his Learned Friend ma know, that in the case of the highest crime known to the law, in the case of high Treason, the evidence in support of the charge was detailed in the indict ment ? But who ever heard of a person so accused complaining of this ? So far from being a hardship, it Was a benefit to the accused. Again, he (the Attor ney-General) was accused of not daring to call things by their right names, of substituting the words— ' adulterous intercourse; for the word adultery. Nsw, in nine cases out often, it occurred in actions for adultery, that the terms illicit intercourse, cri minal conversation, adulterous intercourse,' &C. &c. were substituted for the word adultery' itself.— Why then, he said, that with respect to the preamble of the Bill, it stated what it was proper to state— namely, the facts that were to be proved. His Learned Mr. I)er.man, had, on this part of thesubjeck salivated his audience with many comments on the ::,cure and character of the indecent and offensive laroi:iarity and freedom which the preamble presumed, and of the titles of hollow which the Queen had con tetred. lic h a d ta lk e d much of t h e diff erent interpre tations which would occur to different minds in judg ing of these terms. What might be thought an lode yeast familiari;y with a menial in her Majesty's service by (nle person, might be viewed mere indulgently by *:Mtlaer. All he (the Attorney-General) should say :0 these arguments, if argument's they could be called. was, that they were wholly out of their place. Let the time come when these facts were 1,, ly2 loosed in evidence, •atal their citaracter es. and their Losdships would ilsen ban LO judge whether the ev:de ice justified the acts stated in the preamble, and of course the preamble itself.— The whole of the argument against proceeding by Bill of Pains and Penalties, rested on the ground of, their Lordships acting in that case in their legisla tive, and not in their judicial capacity, and contending for an impeachment, they were bound to have sliewn, that in the present case an impeachment could have been maintained. That proof they had declined ; and their Lordships, he trusted, would agree with him, tharthe wisest course which could have been "pursued, was the one which was the least subject to doubt and uncertainty. Besides, he would confi - dently say, that notwithstanding all those airs of triumph with which those objections were introduced I —notwithstanding all the inflammatory language which accompanied their statement, that a very diffe rent character would have been given to the mea- Enre of proceeding by a Bill of Pains and . Penalties, had not that been the very measure, which, In the present case, had been adopted. It was adopted because it adverted to certain charges against her Majesty the Queen, which, though of the gravest im port, were not a violation of any law, while the best authorities supported the doctrine that an impeach ment could not be maintained but for a breach of a law. Suse, then, he was, that notwithstanding all the chal lenges now so heroically thrown out, notwithstand- ; ing all those allusions-to the morality of the country, : and all those varioustopics so liberally brought into view, had impeachment been the proceeding adopted, the very same objections would have deprecated it, and have said, that the proceeding in the case of an adultery should have been by Bill, and not by ini ipeachment, because by the adoption of the latter course, the accused party was:deprived of the power of recrimination. They complained of the proceed ing by Bill, because they were now shut out from re crimination, and strange to say, regret that the im peachment was not adopted; a course of proceeding which no lawyer would venture to assert, allowed the accused to recriminate. All this contradiction had its purposes ; it was to terrify and to alarm, and to withdraw the minds of their Lordships from the real question on which they had to decide. His Learned Friends had, it was to be recollected, taken this course, not in the exercise of a duty compulsive with them, but acting under an indulgence so very rarely allowed by that House, so rarely indeed, that the divorce case of the Duke of Norfolk was the only one to be foundewhere the Counsel of. the accused was allowed to interfere before the evidence .Was pro duced. It vas not, then, too much to expect that those sweeping charges should have been deferred until the character of the evidence to be produced was ascer tained ; before the charge of corruption was thrown out against witnesses to be examined. Surely his Learned Friends should wait until enabled to sustain such imputations by proof. Considerable stress had been laid on the nature of the protest which had been recorded in the case of Bishop Atterbury, on the Jour- I nals of that House, a protest signed by many Peers, at the head of whom was the Lord Chancellor Cow per (Mr. Brougham, in a low tone, observed, not Lord Chancellor at the time). In the inference which his Learned Friends wished to draw from that pro test, did they think, that because in the proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, the solemnity of pro nouncing their opinion on their honours was not ob served, that they would abandon those high senti ments which belonged to their character and station, and decide not as honourable men on their convictions of guilt and innocence, but under the sway of some base motive or sordid calculation? Their Lordships, he was confident, had far other impressions; they, he knew, felt, that though in form they sat legislatively, yet, in effect, on the present charge, they would have to pronounce judicially. The very protest in the Atterbury ease, which his Learned Friends so much relied or., went to prove that the very proceeding by Bill of Pains and Penalties was not resisted, by the Peers who protested, on any such grounds.— Whence arose their opposition? It arose from this, that such a course led to two judicial proceedings— that it permitted a judicial proceeding by the House of Commons, subsequent to the decision of the House of Peers. Would her Majesty the Queen complain of that?—" Do not part," said the protesting Peers, " with such an essential privilege. Yours is the pre rogative to decide on judicial questions, beware how you delegate that power to any other body differ ently constituted." It never entered their concep tions to contend that the character of the House was altered, because in form they sat in a legislative ca pacity. The mischief against which they wished to provide, was the relinquishment of privileges con sidered the most sacred—the dividing the power of pronouncing judgment, and letting in another power Lot so competent, from its constitution, to form so correct and important a decision. They were un willing- to delegate the power to a body, where pol pular feelings and passions were supposed to find a greater vent, and commanded a greater influence. And judging, as he well might, from what was at, present passing • out of doors, surely this would be the last argument which her Majesty would urge against such "a proceeding, and of which she would be the least inclined Go avail herself. To those ar guments, the protesting Peers added the capability of their Lordships to sift the evidence on oath.— The power it had to command the assistance of the Judges of the land, their vigilance in guarding • agatust the violation of the rules of evidence, rules which were unfortunately too loosely attended to in the other Houscaad the general weight, probability, and credit, due to. the evidence produced. What was the other objection to the proceeding by a Bill of Pains and reealties ? It was this, that the Bishop of Rochester was amenable to the Common Law tribunals of the comity. Why, said . the opposers of the Bill in that case, adopt an extraordinary mode of proceeding when the ordinary judicature of the land was open to yuu ? What was the fact in the present case? . It w4s this, that no proceeding in the criminal judicature was open. This opinion, before contended for, was now confirmed by the brit au thority, that of the Judges of the land. Had such not been his opinion, had it opt been upheld by the decision of the Judges, had there existed a power of bringing these charges before any of the branches of the criminal judicature of the country, he (the Actor • ney-General) would never have presented himself to exercise that duty, in the discharge of which he ap -I.eared that *day at their bar—he would say further, that under a supposition, -in language as strong - as that itmployeci nu the protest on the Atterbury I Bill, he would have deprecated such a procedure. !Do not, h.? would haire said, bring in a Bill of Pains !find-Penalties, if it be open to you to subynit these charges to the discharge of a Jury of the country. That question has been fortunately set at rest—for. tunately, he said, becau se t he d ec i s i on h a d t h e e ff ect , of quieting the doubts and removing the appreben sious of some individuals in the country, pre-emi nently distinguished for rank and talents. Na other course of proceeding remaining than that of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, he defied his Learned Friends to produce a single authority or precedent where the facts to be proved were not stated in the preamble of such a Bill. Wut even if it were doubtful whe ther or not an impeachment could be maintained, the present procedure was the safest course ; it was equally adyantageous to both parties, it subjected the decision not to one but to two tribunals—to one of which, at least, her Majesty could not have the least objection. H e f e l t fully the disadvantages under which, as compared with the line of conduct pursued by his Learned Friends, he had to. struggle. From all reference to those declamatory topics which so well belonged to them, and which with their splen did talents they knew so well how to enforce, he was bound ) by a commanding sense of duty, to abstain. How, he would ask, would his conduct have been arraigned had he ventured to expatiate on the enor mous criminality of the charges which the preamble of the Bill set forth, committed by a Princess destined to be elevated to the splendid station of the Queen of these realms, or had he even alluded to the variety of evidence by which such charges would be substan tiated? That course no inducement should have in fluenced him unnecessarily to take. When the proper time arrived that duty may devolve on him, and, as a-duty, nothing should deter him from its faithful discharge, although he felt sensibly how he must suffer. tinder the disgusting, licentious, and vicious disclosirre which then would he exhibited. Hit Learned Friends may prejudge, they may prejudice, they may assail the characters of the most eminent and illustrious in rank and station ; they may rake from the shades of oblivion all those prejudices or failings over which the healing spirit of time and more correct feeling had, in consideration of his many virtues, thrown a veil—they may select the moment when an Illustrious Individual (the Duke of York) was next in succession to the Throne, when the remains of his Illustrious partner had been just con signed to the grave, to wound his feelings, and re , vive recollections which a better feeling had never disturbed : all these things his Learned Friends may do with impunity; to him it was only open to state the facts which he should call upon evidence to sustain. They may declaim on the bribes by which that evi dence was obtained, and animadvert on the nature of the motives which they presumed to operate on the minds of some of their Lordships. AU that re mained for him was to conjure their Lordships, and he knew he did so not in vain, to dismiss all such inapplicable statements from their minds, and to ap ply themselves to the great and important question, on which, in fact, they were called in their judicial character to pronounce. He next came to the only argument, for he might say one solitary argument comprised the whole speech of his Learned Friend (Mr. B.) yesterday. It was this, that the present pro ceeding was the adoption of an ex post flan law. He did not deny it. What was the case? An Cifence marked by our ancestors as the highest that could be committed against the . State, had been committed by her Majesty. When he said committed, the words were to be understood as used flir the sake of argument. — If the offence had been committed in this country it would have subjected her to the sentence and punish ment of death. Committed abroad with a foreigner, it came not within the penalty of the law. To say that because-it 'teas thus committed, and in a foicii n country, and therefore ought not to be punished, merely because the proceeding would be an ex post ,facto proceeding, would go to destroy the principles on which all divorce cases were sustained. He had now answered the arguments of his Learned Friends as far as they had confined themselves to argument ; their declamation he did not imitate. Fortunately for him, he was addressing an Assembly of high rank, of great talent, and profound knowledge of the Constitution ; and however they might be pleased for a moment with striking powers of declamation, he felt assured that their judgments could never be mis led from the real merits of the question, much less was he apprehensive that they would be intimidated by threats from the course of justice. He knew that, as Mr. Denman had stated, this was a tremen dous. inquiry; bu't he had so much reliance on the candour and manliness of the people of' this country, that he was persuaded when they came to know the facts which had always been concealed from them, they would be satisfied at the course which the Go vernment bad pursued. 41 The party accused (con tinued the Learned Counsel) need not fear your Lordships' judgment. If guilty, I am sure that no thing can be stated which will induce you to swerve from the, path of duty ; but that- you will put your baud to your hearts, and decide conscientiously and justly. By your Lordships decision you will satisfy the public, that while the meanest subject in the realm is protected by innocence, the highest subject cannot offend with impunity." The SOLICITJR•GENERAL said, it was his duty to trouble their Lordships upon a question which had been justly characterized as important and momentous. He would confess, that he telt with his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, as to the course pursued by the other Legal Gentlemen. • He ex pected that they would have met the question with dispassionate, legal, and constitutional, argument; but, instead of that, they had indulged in personal invective, and departed from the sub ject before them into charges against those by whom the pro teetljngs weie instituted, stigmatizing their motives with the west corrupt design, and even insinuating the guilt of suborna tion of perjury; in the preparation of the evidence by which the cue was to be supported. If the Queen Consort had com muned the cringe with which she was charged—a crime of the deepest dye in a religious and moral point of view—he would sib, was there a person so careless of what he owed to himself sad to his Sovereign, as to . wish that she should sit on the Throne fleet to the ging, after having set an example of suck depravity to the communit y over which she must have so great an influence ? Was there to be no inquiry into a case of this description? Would their Lordships agree with the Learned Counsel on the other side, that such an offence, not being a crime by the law of the land, no punishment ought to attach to it 1 It was imposer. 1 bin that any assembly of Gentlemen coulti say the person *al had so conducted heraelf might to enjoy the rights and prerogal lives of a Queen Consort. What, then, were they to do? Were they to proceed by a BiU of this kind, or by inspeachment,?— it had been said, that this was a Bill of rains and Penalties; fhenefore was objedtionibic.--but every Divorce Bill was of the saw deseription. If the wife 'of a Peer committed adul.. elm the consequence was degradation and divorce.—that was a NW of Pains atni Penalties. His Learned Friends bad endea soured to perstzade their Lordships that the present was a mei , ' case, by stating that it was an es post Ado law—but so was every Bill of Divorce. In short, there was no novelty in the Measure,. no feature of which they could not find an ple. They call upon them to make out a strong case, and they were proceeding to do so in the ordinary way. But was there ever a Bill of Pains and Penalties more necessary than the pre sent, if the facts stated in the preamble could be substantiatad? Mr. Brougham had said, with a sort of candour for which he could' not thank him, that he would pass over the reign of Iktiry Vlll.—but again, in a subsequent part of his speech, he had brought that Monarch forward. If his Learned Friend could . find any precedents in that reign applicable to the parts of the present case, let him lay them fairly and boldly before the House. He (the Solicitor General) was not afraid to meet direct cases, but he did not know how to-deal with insinuations and oblique attacks, in which the Queen's Attorney General was so emi nently successful. His Learned Friend had stated that he would forbear from any recrimination; but his Learned Friend, though he had disclaimed the topic in the first instance, had subse quently entered into recrimination. A person of his acute mind must have known well that it could out apply to the ques tion now before their Lordships. But it was the miifor tune of the subject in which they were engaged, to be per petually. mixed up with collateral topics of a nature caletilated to inflame the public mind, and to shake the foundations of the Government. It was much to be deplored that the s t atue , course had been pursued by all her Majcety's supporters, pro fissional and otherwise; but recrimination, aftenall, could have no . application to a question of that description. It was per fectly clear to his mind, that the remedy pointed out by the Bill was the one that afforded thabsst, nee .ns of tryina the case. There were but two courses open to them—that of Bill, and that of Impeachment. Those who now asked for a proceeding by impeachment, would have been the first and loudest to con demn it, if its adoption had been resolved upon. Bet in addi tion to its being a doubtful remedy, what punislnneut did it afford ? Could they divorce the panics by an impeachment? Could they degrade her from her, high tank and digoiry? No. Fine, imprisonment, or capital punishment, were the only penal .ties that followed such a proceeding. lie saw, from the manner of Mr. Brougham, that he did not accede to his lest position, but be Would defy him to produce an instance to the contrary. The proceeding by Bill was a judicial proceeding, on which the Queen must be heard in both Houses. Everything was speci fied in the Bill—the name of the adulterer was given ; 1 - ut if the acts of adultery were not committed in one or in two kingdoms, if they embraced a considerable portion of the globe, it was not necessary to name one or two instances specifically, nor was it 'unnery to be so precise in an impeachment as in cases se:com mon indictment: He had stated the Parliementary law on the subject, as it appeared to him ; it was for their Lordships to de cide upon its propriety. But his sLearned Friend bad stated, that her Majesty was Princess of Wales at the period when these acts were alleged to have taken place. Did that consti tute any distinction between the offences? Did rot the same reasons and objections apply to her conduct as the wife of, the Prince Regent; and was she not as criminal in the one case as in the other? His Learned Friends had also criticised the lan guage of the Bill. What was the substance of the preamble?-- Without confining himself to the language, it amounted to this, that her Majesty had preferred a menial servant—that she had loaded him with favours and honours—that she had fenced be:- self round with his relatives—that a degrading and unbecoming Intimacy had subsisted between them, and that a licentious and adulterous intercourse went on for a considerable period of time. When they said that some of the acts constituted no offence, surely they must admit that the whole taken together constituted a dis tinct and mast disgraceful charge. His Learned niend seemed to think there was no difference betweeu the adultery of a man and adultery committed by a woman. This wasea must extraor dinary proposition, whether it was considered in a legal point of view, or with reference to the effects of this offence up..n so clay. Adultery in a matt was in no way punishable; adultery in a man could not be made the subject of a Bill of Divorce, though adultery in a female might. Why then did his Learned Felted go out of his way to grapple with a proposition of this nature? That he (Mr. Brougham) should have advanced so wild and untenable a proposition as the equal criminality of adultery in both sexes, merely for the purpose of building an attack upon an Illustrious Person, was to him (the Solicitor-G e n e r a l) mat ter of amazement and surprize. It had been said, that there were persons who encouraged her Majesty to go aleoed, in order to make her the victim of a most foul and al:amicable conspiracy. This was a specimen of the spirit and temper in which the proceedings were conducted on behalf of her Ma-. jetty. Was it possible that such 'diabolical wickedness could exist in the breasts of persons of high rank and exalted station ? But if they who encouraged her Majesty to go abroad, and who advised her to continue abroad, with those sinistcrviews, had abandoned every principle of honour, the man who received such a proposal, who was the bearer of such a proposal* geed who assented to it on the part of the Queen, we, full as bad a man as he who made the proposal himself. He hulk vtd, how ever, that no blame was to be imputed to anybody in this re spect. Ile thought the advice which ha.i been given was the best which under all the circumstances could possibly We given . . Would to GOD that advice had been followed? Ha would not troable their Lordships further. The simple question before'. their Lordships was, whether the present Bill ought to be pro teedsd in or abandoned, for the purpoee of proceeding by im peachment, liable as that course was to all the inconvenience and disadvantages which he (the Solicitor-General), had expressed. Mr. Bitouetieu rose to reply.—" I confess, my Lards, that after having given the utmost attention to the arguments which have been urged by my Learned Friends who appear as Counsel against her Majesty, 1 fecl'myself hardly called upon in the dise charge of my duty to my Royal Client to avail myself of the usual privilege of reply. At allevents, I purpose to confine my. • self to'a very few topics among those which have been urged by my Learned Friends. With this view, and with-the full inter- - ' tion of keeping a promise, which is more frequedtly made than observed, I purpose, without further preface, to solicit your •Lordship' attention to several of tioseeoplesi First of all, suffer sae to observe, that a general and somewhat vague charge has ken adduced of our having deviated horn the pint Stated to be in issue before the House, namely, the principle of th'e BIM It has been sild, that 1 have gone into arguments which belong to anothair stage of the proceedings, and that I have entered into a great *lass of collateral wetter in no way relevant to the matte; in issue._ I think my Learned Friend would not have brought fm std this charge, if he had adverted to the manner in which Il aubinitted my arguments to your Lordships' notice. Suffer are to remind pane Lordships, that I set out with stating that *Ws was a legislative proceeding. The question was, whetiw a new law should he made by Parliament? and in making obe jections to that new law, every argument was relevant which bad a tendency to arrest the course of the Legislature.' We st a nd In a very different situation from that in which we should t have been placed, if we bad hid to meet articles of impeach menu, or to defend in a prOceeding by indictment. In either of, these proceedings we should have been strictly and rigidly cone fined to the charges, withoitt the possibility of mitering isVo any collateral arguments until the question should arise, wnether punishmeut should be awarded? Here, on the contrary, we are placed in a different, or rather an opposite predicament, in which we are called upon to argue, whether this Bill shall or shall not proceed? and this broad distinction lets in every atgu 'tient of expediency, every view of the necessity which does or . does hot exist for making this new law at all. It lent in, by a . just inference, every one of those topics, which were not vaguely and irrelevantly, put strictly and technically urged by :inner( • • and my Learned Coadjutor before your Lordihips. Ili tee calling your Lordships' attention to the arguments which .have . been urged on the other side, I cannot omit the eloquent an 4, elaborate eulogy which my Learned Frieud the Sulicitor-Ge rse . • - sal thought fit to pass upon Bills of Peins and Penalties in t.' • abstract. They are, It seems, an integral pak of our Constinn: • ' tion. These are an ancient branch of that happy form of gov meat intimately mixed up and interwoven with the whole tenets of our civil and judicial policy. They are a sacred branch of the happy Constitution of England, and GOD forbid, tßys he, that any man who values the muter branch of that Coustint tion, should wish to see them abolished! Without subscribieg, as a lover of the popular branch of our Constitation, to the non citor-General's praises of Bills of Pains and Penalties—for tne Constitution includes, I conceive, the just and pure etintinistran tion of the laws, and embraces 11 that Is valuable, and loved, and respected for securing them—l do not mean to deny what li - admitted in the language of Lord Chancellor Cowper. that ~ nines may by pouibitity occcr, which would nut ouly .but enjoin the enactment of a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Rut it lies upon him or hit employers who bring forward 'such a Bill • to descend front its general eulogy, anti draw front thine eulogy of this particular measure--te dernoueerati: tits necessity which almost justifies, and, when it justifies, may tie eautved to exact the enactment of so extraordinary a measure. Tye Sell. citor-General has addressed your Lordships in the language anj tone of an Advocate who forgets everything that does aos make' Ammoism . - 111 .~- I