The Sun. — London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

l i t to as of f ! less, the d ref I E ~~Q' Case, rainsi ' avo i d; Ani 11111 5 t es t of a lace t inhig d not y ad had i seeo E , back was o de- siSh e gra" ffeCtl ence -1 the s the beef' the rhe tiliol l f for have 'any influence on the decision - which they, e . no* to 'come to;-on the propriety of pro,. c eding Avith,,:or... abandoning the. fttrther pro !caution of the 'present Bill. They were now 'determine, `supposing the grave; serious and disgusting* charge 'against the Queen to be sustaitied by indisputable testimony, whether it he proper, the facts beino , fully establish ed, that- the enactments; 'contained in the Bill should follow. His Learned Friends had ar giied both yesterday and 'to-day, as if it were in rot' that the Bill was supported by perjured " l ira ol V, by suborned witnesses, by spies and Wormers and this assumption had run through 'the whole of their Addresses. Be must contend that the' proper time for taking this course had Tryet Ar r i ve d ; an d hi s L ea rned Friends in, appealing to the feelings and passions of " e Douse, were tampering with the, question, lattempting to mislead their Lord Ships; dressed His Learned .Friend who had last ad thenc had met hint 'this day with a new °l) lectio n . • • He had.• objected- to the preamble of ?1e 13111, and had thought proper to go into the belie ve d rrof the manner in which he would have it elieved that it had been produced, and into ;, 4 'history o f th e 'Secret Committee, and he ha d argued that those were wrong who com pared the .procee di ngs o f th a t Committee to th ose of a Grand Jury, and he had contend td;that another mode ' o f proCee di ng oug ht t o ba re been preferred, though the Judges had i'ftterday d e cid e d that from the alleged adultery ' a :ing been committed .with a foreigner, and in e 'oreign land, her Majesty escaped the penalties S nigh Treason. When it was said that the ecr e CoMmittee had not acted the part of a Gr and Jury, he would ask if they had preferred . a 4 1 r 1 Y- char ge against her Majesty ? They had not e b °4 so. They had merely stated that serious had'been . preferred against her Majesty, but did- not take upon themselves to say whether :• " V as guilty or innocent ; and all that they re th7mended was, that .the case should be made Though 6 ubject of a solemn legislative inquiry. (111 7. h the Learned Gentleman considered these proceedings to have originated with the Secret 14,11tnittee, in the very next breath he charged i",iiinisters with not having founded this Bill on General) Report of the Committee. He (the Attorney theneraD had however to make this remark, that au !, had recommended a legislative proceeding, At that p rocee di ng mus t necessarily be by Bill. A . the propriety of taking this course their Lord 'Ps had d ec id e d,. w h e n they allowed the Bill 0 - he read . a fi rs t ti me , and they had only now t ° decide whether they would go on with the mea sure. The Learned Gentleman had spoken of the Committee as having made their Report on i l l vouched d ocumen t s . H o w did he know this •? es":(th e Att orney -G enera l) k ne w no more on th ' subjects than his Learned Friend did, but he -;a s • info T Me.cf it' was not that which he had sup ,.The *Learned Gentleman had gone -ar ough theTreamhle of the Bill, and on this he t h a t a most extraordinary compl aint, namel y , ~ the :matters icharged against her Majesty here set forth at some length, Instead of being ed uced to one shOrt charge.. This was a most 11 gular complaint. Had the Learned Gentle , t an forgot, t ha t i n or di n a r y proceedings,',it was , set forth complaint that the offences were not - fo r ts t 'u,at length, and in cases of High Treason, Provided Uf the accused,. it was specially • ed that they' should be set forth at length, and i n I'ver what N;vay they were to be proved. Was corm ," l e. l.o re'a person' accused of a crime known to I mA that he was brought to trial not onlyknow rith what he was charged t but also the man `n Which it was to be proved. Far from being w nec lirenience; he would contend that that which hi complained *of,' was an advantage to her u eh l e . s tY. Ile was surprised' at the laboured argu- Ir s ,;raised on th e term "adulterous intercourse," 131 1 ,,,, i° the Bill instead of 44 adultery." In most c c Bills the adultery was described as an port illicit intercourse," or words of a similar im as 4. a nd the words found in the present Bill were t er .'" used in Divorce Bills to express the adul th4 ,_as any other. His Learned Friend had p os :g n ,t fit to throw in some humour, for the pur tiot' 61 enlivening the audience, and he had argued hthe intercourse of her Majesty with Bergami aR g t be regarded as indecent by one man, and ver n ot being indecent, by another. It would be ju s icwell to argue this, if the evidence would u 1 t,,, h 1 When the' facts had been proved, it st a l ` be fairly urged ; but in the present In itisce) he could only view it as an ' attempt. to ih e l ead the House, and divert.the attention from ag tt r . e al question before the House, which was s ent ~,the propri e ty of going on with the pre lie would call their attention to any trill °C Pains' and Penalties, that the House ,lit see if the charge was not put in the same. he i ( If way as th e p r esen t Bill. Here he read fo r th at !gultge in' which the charge had been set q t . ° In: Atterbury'S case, which expressed the - R gest horro r o f the 'offence, and thence ;r:s 4f h . ei . ' r ed that the'cOMplaint made against the , gro k Z, 'on that account was idle and wel lt T e ss• The 'Bill now before 'the House "t A i ° make Parliament express " a deep 'sense ' du t t, S candalens, 'dis t? ousling,: and , vicious con- • 14trorthy•of her rank," which was imputed i "ecid e piesty• It would be' for the House to P .° 4 l the evidence, whether her conduct. ( %aet tied such a description, and whether the It 1, b rit contained in -•. , a b sh ui e en said; that the' Charge , was- founded ,•• th e den s and perjuries, and not vn the opiniop den( before that had 'reported on the evi -110 "fore them.' 'The'COniinittee .had - given " I°4 on the • remained House to evidence, it ' for : t : he nPou ° do thaf. Had_ the COmmittee 'taken ' e seive to decide its it . s on iher s, then,. gne ' i t' might have been complained that the 4""• h a d N 4 ,1 been unf a irly ll'rejtidged. Till the 4 . 11 evi c ti ei , liad been beard,' Vira's impOssible for- si de to be safelylOrmied . • either 'on one n 3 01 , ,Z 1 9 1 e other: His Learned Friend` had tiPn4 trade an air of,ridicule`Of the communica 41ade to ue to her Majesty,, and Qf; she efforts distressieStytis n g *IAOI - reply; that then it was an object to prevent this evi dence , from being seen, and 'it was not under such circumstances, and at- that time s for :those engaged in the correspondence, which had . been alluded to, to assume that . the Adultery had - been . proved. When the Adultery had been proved by the evidence, such an observation as had been made might not be . ill-timed, but at present it was too muchto argue that those in communication with her Majesty were to - act on the assumption that the charge preferred against her Majesty had been proved. It had been unfairly assumed, that an impeach ment could, be maintained. Had that courSebeen preferred, notwithstanding all that was now said, he had no doubt that they should at once have been told that 'that was not the way in which the House ought to proceed. In the same manner it would have been argued that they could not pu- , Dish the Queen f i or High Treason, because the act charged against her had been committed iu a foreign land. Had they thought of pursuing a line . of conduct different from that which they had taken, they Would have been stopped at the outset ; and though the Queen was now most he roically ready to meet an impeachment, had that been preferred, they would have been met with threats and objections of tenfold force. Then they Would have been told, " 0 you should not have proceeded b.y Impeachment; you might better have effected your purpose by Bill. Then, too, her Majesty could have been allowed to recriminate, but now, alas! we are denied the right of recrimination." Had Ministers thought fit to proceed by an Impeachment, his Learned Friends well knew that no recrimination _Could have been alloWed. Had, it ever been beard, • that in a case of High. Treason a person .should say, " I am guilty, but I can chew that the cot). duct of others. has been as bad, and. therefore ought not to be punished." Now co the Bill, with that inconsistency which belonged to the arguments of his Learned Friends, they con tended for the right of recrimination as most im portant to her Majesty, and yet complained that she had not been proceeded against by Impeach ment, which would have taken that right away. He believed that there was no instance in the case of a .Bill of Pains and Penalties, in which the Counsel for the accused had been allowed to argue against the principle of the Bill in this. stage of the proceedings. His-Learned Friends thus indulged, and professing to argue as if the charges had been proved, had arraigned the witnesses before they were heard, and attacked the evidence before it had been disclosed to their Lordships, and reasoning on it accord ingly, called upon the House not to go into it. He called on the House not to be led astray by his Learned Friends, but to reserve their opinion on the evidence till it was produced. Let them wait till they could see whether it was tainted and corrupt, He thought the indulgence with which his Learned Friends had been favoured had been somewhat abused by the limeades, insinua tions, and attacks which had been thrown out and made on various parties in the course of" their speeches. Their assertions (he meant no disrespect to them) were entitled to no attention when they comprehended such sweep ing personalities as those to which he had alluded, maintained - as they were by any thing hut assertion. The principal protest Atterbury's case had, as it appeared to him, been most unfortunately referred to by his Learned Friends. It was in that cOmplained that a Bill of Pains and Penalties subjected the accused 'to two tribunals instead of one. The mischief then remarked. upon was this, that the House of Commons were enabled to sit as Judges in the case ; and it was urged that the House of Commons - would never bring up impeachments to the House of Lords, if proceed ing by a Bill of Pains and Penalties they could sit as Judges themselves with equal power. He did not apprehend that the Queen and her friends would on this occasion complain of this — that they would object to the other House (in which popular feelings were more likely to pre:- vail than in their Lordships' House), taking a part in the present proceedings. lie had not expected when his Learned Friend alluded to Atterbury's case that he , would refer to the protest, which proceeded altogether on the assumption that their Lordships would act in the same way, professing to act legislatively as if they sat judicially. Their Lordships had had the opinion' of the Judges, who had decided that the case was one that could not be proceeded against in a Criminal Court. He (the Attorney-General),.. if the Queen had been guilty of High Treason, could not have. stood at their Lordships' Bar to ad vise that they should proceed in this way if a judicial' course - of proceeding had been open to them, and he had referred to. Atterbury's case for the purpose of sliewing the danger of doing se. 'The present he considered to be the only safe ~mode 'of proceeding. If he (the Attorney-Ge neral) were now to` enlarge on the enormity of the crime - alleged to have been committed by the Queen, at that time but Princess of Wales, Mit next i n ran k to what she was now, he should' be com plained of as doing that which ought not to be done at-this moment. His conduct would be arraigned' if he were even to allude to the evidence' by which the Bill was to 'be sustained, and which, God knew, would be disclosed soon enough. Such conduct would be considered an atteMpt to pre judge the question, but his Hon.: and Learned Friend could a ttack by insinuation and- inuendo' `whom he pleased. No individual was too high :for him to attack, and he did.not scruple to revive the charges formerly brought against an illus 'triens individual, in spite of the great benefits : which the country had derived from his talents and 'his services. Those subjects were again to be brought forward, wbiCh it would have been well neirer.lO have agitated, and this was to be ,done in the agonizing moment when the re mains of One most near to him had but just -been conaigued to the grave.. This could be done by her Majesty's Counsel ; but-he must not imitate such conduct ; and till the proper-time aiiived for speali.ing. on the evidence: he should carefully abstain. from inflicting any unneces sary wound on the feelings, of the Queen. He would rather submit to all the disadvantageS of his situation. Ala n act such a part ; but he felt it right to call on their Lordships, and fie kneW : that he should not call in vain, to dismiss from their minds the appeals whiCh had been made to: their feelings, to reserve their opinions, and go on with temper ; and doinc , this, he should con tentedly submit to their decision, whaterur 'that decision might be. Out of all the arguments that. had been adduced on the other side, there was not one which had any application. to the, ques-: tion. One Learned Gentleman, on the other side, Mr. Brougham, adverted to the old objec tions against the Bill, on the, score of its involving an ex post filet° law : this he could not deny. But . he would ask, if. an offence of the highest magnitude, one which had been marked by -our ancestors as the highest that could be committed against the State, was to be allowed to pass un punished ? Her Majesty had been Charged with having been guilty of this offence whilst Princess' of Wales: It was well known, that if it had been 'committed in this country it would amount to an offence equivalent to High Treason, and be subject to the punishment of death. But, because it had happened out of the country, and with a person who owed no'allegiance to the Sovereign of these Realms, and did not incur the penalty of the law, was it therefore of so light a nature as to call for no interference on the part of the Legislature ? The charge in the preamble of the Bill was, that the Queen of this Kingdom had heaped favour and fortune on a menial of low birth, in her ser vice, and had carried on an adulterous inter course with him, and pursued conduct of a most indecent, licentious, and disgraceful nature ? Was this, he. asked, no offence—not to be looked to by their Lordships? Was it, becauSe of• its hav ing bees committed in 'ltaly or elsewhere, on that account - to pass altogether unnoticed'? Was that which, according to the law of this coun try, would 'affect the honour, the fortune, and the life of the individual guilty of it,' because it , was contracted under the.circurnstances he had • mentioned, not to be visited with any punish meta ? and.-.were they to be told that because it was not an offence when committed, it was not to be treated as such afterwards? As to the objection of 'the' measure being au ex post facto . law, the same would apply to every Divorce Bill that was brought into that Honse, which was to all Intents and purposes an ex post facto . law.: —The marriage ties were contracted as indis soluble—the husband has Cause of coMplaint, and comes to .that House, for what ? Why, to ask them pass an ex post facto law; one :which, though it was not in the precise form - of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, was distinctly one in its operations against the wife. A Divorce Bill was a retrospective law ; and another resemblance it bore to a Bill of Pains and Pesalties was, that if the Bill was against a Peeress, the consequence of its being passed was a degradation from her rank and titles. Their Lordships were not about to pass an ex post facto law, by making that High Treason Which was so before.' . I.tut although:they Were nit going to do that, they- did not mean to let it pass unnoticed. He trusted he had given a satisfactory answer to all which. her Majesty'; Attorney-General had advanced on ; this point. 'The next argument was, - that. this proceeding should rather have been instituted by the mode of impeachment. 'But what 'authority or piece. dents could' be urged in favour of such a.proce. dure ? lie was" aware that there were some Per. sons entitled to. great respect, .who carried the doctrine of impeachinent _too far. There were persons who were of opinion that inipeachment might be substituted in all cases which were not amenable to the laws. Of all the cases to be found bearing a reference to this: point, the impeachment of Lord Somers was the only one on which a doubt could be entertained. And there it would be seen, that he was charged with the commission of an act contrary to 'his duty in the situation in which he stood towards the Crown, for affixing - his .official :seal with a Foreign Power. He (the Attorney Ge neral) was of opinion, that a 'public functionary was amenable to the laws for dereliction, or a false direction, of his duties, which in his opinion was tantamount to a crime. The opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone on the Law of Impeachment was, 44 that an impeachment.before Parliament is: a prosecution on the principles of the known and common law of the land, differing from Bills of Pains and Penalties, inasmuch as these latter are now laws to meet the- case." He therefore un-' derStood that enlightened lawyer to be-of opi nion that impeachment would . not stand where the offence was not known to the law. And as his Learned Friends declared that this offence was not known to the law, their own conces sion was 'against•the argument: -If their Lord. ships would look to the cases 'Of impeachment, they only - on e whieir cou ld refer ; but even then, not would find .that that of La rd Somers wits the runless the' case could be pushed to the extreme,' that a 'Minister can be punished for an error of judgment. "After the variety of topics touched on'by his Learned Friends, they entered at great .length into the expediency of th,emeasure,urging every thing that could be deemed likely to in .flUCIlCe their Lordships' minds. To this he would 'only reply, that expediency was not the question 'which they were called to the bar to discuss. The only question which they Were permitted to entertain,' it appeared to - him was, whether 'their Lordships should go• on with the Bill, or abaft.. done it, in order that the matter might be tried at some other, bar. Her Majesty called fotexa mination ; the inquiry, therefore., was the only matter for hesitation, and net' ire expediency. Their Lordships had settled that, when they permitted the Bill to be brought in. '.Chore was another extraordinary argument' used on this oc. casion, which was, that they ' could . not visit on the Queen , an offence committed whilst she was Princess of Wales. The case, however, was pre cisely the same in both instances, as the Princess of Wales would be equally- subject to the al. :leged Offence; if committed in this conntry,.,with (;) t w coying allegiance,. to. the Monarchy of these "Reahns. Oli that topic, therefore, there was not the least foundation for the objection urged. The Queen was in no worse a situation now, than if the Bill was brought against her as Princess of Wales. She 'was deprived of no advantages now which she would have had as such,, and therefore. the proceedings were precisely the same. This 13111 waiintroduced as a measure against a sdt-, ject of the Crown, and as an affair of State, although it was contended that it was dic tated by the private feelings of one, who, were it not a matter of State, would be the only party interested. What, if our ancestors had thought the crime of adultery worthy of death, were their. Lordships to confine themselves in their . Punish; meat of it to those cases only where a succession was tainted ? Did our ancestors guard agairmt that in the statute of Edward' ? If is Learn ed Friend (Mr. Brougham) had told them • that they could not pass the, Bill before the House without the act of adultery was . distinctly proved. He was willing to grant him. that. The divorce would, not follow without the adultery proved but the Bill,assumed that the adultery :had - been. committed. The first question for their Lord ships would be - whether the whole or part of the preamble had been proved. If the whole were not proved, it was not for, him - nor his Learned Friend to trouble themselves about what would , be their Lordships' enact- meats in that case. - The only. argument of importance was on the subject of impeachment. He had proved that impeachment could not lie in this case, and therefore there was. no other course to be pursued than the present one ; and even if there were, it would still be a question whether this were not as good. In going . over the topics which had, been introduced into the speeches of the Learned Counsel on the other side, he might have omitted many. Those in flammatory ones, he was sure he had not touched on, and that nothing should tempt him to follow the example set him with respect to then*; he was addressing a great assembly, and these ad diesses to their passions, ho never they might please for the moment, and dead thein to admire the Advocate at the Bar, he was sure would not weigh one tittle when they came dispassionately to the consideration of the qnestion involved in - - - them. It was in truth a tremendous inquiry, and he knew what attempts to give it a bias would be made by the means of, popular clamour. He was confident, however, that :such unworthy means would have no effect , Qu their Lordships, who would go on uith a firm and steady pace to the end in view, and in spite of all the vile at tempts made to delude them. He had such con fidence in the manliness and good sense of the people of this country, that when the fact's were once before them, there would be nothing - to fear. If innocent, the party would have nothing to fear from their Lordships ; if guilty, he was "sure no menaces would ever induce them to swerve one tittle from what justice demanded: With: their hands upon their hearts, they would attend. to the evidence before them, which. if clear their decision would satisfy that so the publ . -loin; as the meanest,was protected for her innocence — the highest subjeCt in the kingdom could not offend •• with impunity. The SOLICITOR-GENERNL then , rose to address their Lordships. His duty, he observed, called upon him to trouble them on this subject, which had been property 'characterised by all whohad preceded him, as most important andmo mentous. He'confessed that' ho partook of the feeling of the Atiornev-General as to the line of conduct pursued - by the Learned Counsel on the other side, in introdueing.ttOpies al together unconnected with the question. He (the Solicitor- General) understood they came there for the purpose of calmly and temperately discussing a great legal question. The question was proposed to the House by the Counsel of her Majesty, and those persons associated with them, and the AttornO-General and, himself. But his Learnecl•Frientla on .the other side had most widely desiated from the coorsmite scribed to them ;- descending to the use of personal insect ice, charging the persons who brought the charge with the most; ,corrupt perjury, and those who were to appear before them as witnesses, with having lent themselves to subotnatiori, and employed the intik disgraceful means to make out a case against au Illustrious Indiiidual. They had placed them selves out 'of the situation'of defendants, and assumed that-of accusers. For his own part, he would say that;all•their charges and imputations Were utterly devoid of foundation, and be challenged theM to the proof of them when they came to the investigation. 'He had said that the question under consideration was, under every point of view, most sitOple. By the law of the laud as it at present stood, the Queen Con sort of these realms corn - milting adultery with any one - olving allegiance to the Monara of the realms, was guilty of High Treason. This was Itte . acknowledged law of the land: but by a nice refilled technical distinction,' which had given occa sion for much doubt and debate ainoug the Judges, it turned' out, that, however scandalous the case might be, if it teas not committed with a prison owing allegiance to the Sovereign, it WAS not . cognizahle by the law of the land; But stas it to ba said, that a person so condticting herself, fur, it was im possible to conduct the argument on any other principle than that all the, facts charged against the Queen• would be proved, ~(it must he assumed that all the facts ionld be made out to the satisfaction of the House ;) was it then to be said that the Qneen Consort of these colitis could he guilty ,of ,an 'offence so nearly verging sin the . highest crime known to the caw, so contrary to religion, and so derogatory from the high dignity of her situatiat, that' such a person should sit upon fhe Throtre, holding out au example so universal and so pernicious? Was there no put nishment, no penalty for-such a transgression ? On thd one hand, it, was said this be,ing no offence against the laws; - was' no crime, and therefore no penalty. On' the other, 'it was said that it. should not he treated by a Bill of Pains and Penal ties, but rattier by impeachment.' He thought it was irupos sible that any hotly of reasonable men, or of Gentlemen;' and much Jess a tribunal like that he was then addressing, t oulcU say that, a person so conducting herself should' enjoy the station of Queen.cons'ort of these realms ! There Were only two ways of. proceeding. The one was by bill, as in the pre seat tase i the othei by impeachMent. In the mode aduipted in this instance, what was the nature of the Bill ? It charged in the preamble, an (*nee committed with a foreigner abroad. therefore not , cognizable by the law. What the• Bill enacted was a disseintion of the marriage, and degradation. Was it more than what oitglit to fhtloW, if the charges should be proved, that she should he deprived of her rank, station, and dignity? or, was it not a necessary consequence that her marriage with She King should be broken? Was the King to be denied what the meanest suliect could obtain? 'A Bill of Pains and Penalties might be a Bill for a dissoldticin of marriage and degradation • but did not every Session' see same, of the sae, kind ? 'The argument of his Learned • Friend the Attorney-General was clear on that paint. — The Lear.ned Gentlemen, however, on the other side,‘'with a displar.of talents he had rarely seen equalled , and never exceeded, head labonred to strew that this was altogether a new Proceeding. They admitted that it was not a Bill of Divorce, butt an Cr po4l facto law. That admission dis penseul with the necessity.pf his answering that part of the ' argument ; whilst, it called on theist to Make out a 'strong •case or prepare necessity s a y t ,, o t j h u a s t t i i f t y IN ! a h s e p a ar i.s n e t sanseu(rt rn a l: y e was cases before that Tribunal. But even if it was not, walthera ever an occasion better justifying such a measure? Wog it be tolerated that conduct of such a nature as be' had al. hunted to, should be allowed to rass? Was it to be tolerated that such an individual, of such qua lifications, should 'l2,,suf fered to remain iii this country, off,ering so exalted an'exam pie of licentinuaniss? Hi agreed with the teamed Vedsn se t that if all this could have been possibly avoided—it the Qti een , listening to other counsels,' could have been induced - iot to , . . **" • ' ' n:: vf.