The Sun. — London, England, 1820-07-06 00:00:00

her -case, you will study suit allow mere tech objectionß to stand in die 4vay of complying with the prayer (if her Maipsty's Petition. I know not what is the precise object sought by her Ma jesty in this Peiition, but it is possible that she may have to obi,et to the course by 1301 as pro. posed by the Noide Earl, and if so, her Petition would come most 6 - fly to be heard before that measure is introduced. Lord ELLRNBOROUG -My Lords, I cannot al low that the argument of the Noble Linn!, as to the high station of the Petitioner, is entitled to Ow least weight. It is ' , or duty to do equal and ;inpartial justice ; awl I cooteud that her Majesty the Queen, as a Petitioner to this House, is entitl ed to no other consideration titan the lowest of his Majesty's subjects. It is, I conceive, clear, that nu subject petitiouing this House with a si milar claim to that . contained itt this Petition, would .not, according to the forms and usages of the House, be allowed to be heard ; and it is op on this ground, at this ground alone, I contend tl , zt the prayer of the Petition of her Majesty might not to he complied with. The Earl GaRY-1 feel, my Lords, in rising (non this subject, how notch it is involved in dif ficnity and embatrassment, whilst I am satisfied at the same time, that that difficulty and embar rassment is one of the consequences of the course ref proceeding, which has, 1 contend, been rashly and improperly adopted L his Majesty's Mini-. seers. Agreeing with the- Noble Lord, who has jest spoken, that it is our duty to do equal and impartial justice, I must, nevertheless, be allow ed to say, that there are circumstances peculiar to this case, unprecedented as it is, at least in mo dern times, which remove it from the influence of all ordinary rides. It has been admitted by the Noble Lord, on the other side, as indeed it must he, that there is no precedent or land-mark to guide us in thin extraordinary and lamentable pro ceeding, and therefore it is the more retnatkable that they should now set up technical objections. As to the objection of the Noble Earl, that her Majesty can have, in a Parliamentary sense, no knowledge of the Report of the Secret Commit tee ; it appeals to nee extraordinary, that such an objection should be urged when it may be so easily imagined that an individual in that high station need not long be ignorant of what is pass ing in this House with regard to het self, and when not many days since it was never thought of urg ing that objection against heating her Majesty by her Counsel, in compliance with the prayer of her Petition. I certainly felt upon that occasion, bat there were objections to that course of pro , - ceeding, but uone were made by the Noble Lords on the other side, and the House agreed without opposition to hear her Majesty's Counsel. That having been done, I cannot see how we can con sistently refuse to comply wi:h the prayer of the present Petition of her Majesty, partienlat ly as the case is nosy so much the stronger. Upon the former Petition it might have been urged that the question merely was as to the mode of proceeding in the Rouse, but now there is a specific charge, and that of the gravest nature, against the Queen aCtnally laid upon the Table, supported by all the sveight and authority of a Secret Committee of your Lordships' House. Under these circum stances, and with no precedent to guide us, I cannot think that .We ought to refuse the prayer of the Queen's Petition. We ate at present ig norant of the nature of the Bill which the Noble Earl on the other side intends to itstroduce, but assuming it to be a Bill of Divorce, let us see how the case stands. In all ordinary cases of this description there are previous proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and in the Courts below, in the course of which the party accused has the means of bringing forward witnesses ; but in this case none of these preliminary proceedings are to take place; the party accused is charged at once with adultery by the Report of a Secret Com mittee, and after a part of our own body have thus prejudged the case,-we are to proceed to the final adjudication. In a case so entirely unpre cedented, it does not appear to me that, after hearing Counsel in the former instance, we can consistently refuse to hear Counsel also in the present, according to the prayer of her Majesty's Petition. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Brfore proceeding, my Lords, to say a few words as to the immediate, question before the Home, I wish to observe upon the argument of prejudging this case, that it is quite preposterous to suppose that your Lord ships' cannot, in enteriyg upon the judicial consi der:l6°n of this case, divest your minds of all the information you have previously received upon the subject, when the meanest juryman in the kingdom (I do not use the term in any offensive sense) is in the constant habit of divesting his mind in a similar manner of the impressions it hes received ; when, for instance, a man confess ing his guilt and giving evidence, but who not giving that testimony which was expected from him, is subsequetoly subjected to trial. With re gard to her Majesty's Petition, it is certain that, io a Parliamenta'y sense, no perion beyond the walls of the House can be supposed to be ac (painted wills what has passed within it. I t is, b!sideo, impossible, consistently with any of your Lordships' forms and usages, that we can receive Petition against a Bill which is not yet brought into the House. It is the undoubted privilege of guy one of your Lordships to present a Bill at once us a matter of right, without moving for leave to bring it in ; and were the prayer of this Petition to be needed to, it would be in fact giving the sanction of the House to a Petition against your Lordships' privileges. I certainly, therefore, cannot agree that C ounse l s h ou ld b e beat'd in this stage of the proceeding. The Marquess of LA NSDOW N —m y Lords, the difficulty and embarrassment which I previously felt with regard to this question, h ave been terially increased by the speech of th e N o bl e an d Learned Lord, because, after your Lordships' agreed to hear Counsel ou behalf of her Majesty in the former instance, when, it; point of fact, ‘.hat was petitioned against was merely a pro ceeding within the House and did not amount to a charge against the Queen, I cannot se e upon what principle it is that your Lordships can now refuse to hear her Majesty's Counsel wken a heavy and setioos charge is actually laid upon the Table against her Majesty. There may be doubts as to the course of p:oceeding fit to be , adopted, but when yo tr Lordships hare already adopted the course of hsaring Counsel in a stage of the proceeding where the motives for it were by no means so strong as in the present instance, I do slot see upon what grounds, in the absence of all precedent, you can consistently refuse to com ply with the prayer of t lie petition, Lord Repasnat.e-•44'' , iLords, the argunient that has been k lduced by.. Noble. Lords, on the other side is, that ,because yotP•l;a`ve iinfCe!irone . wrong, that therefore you ought to do wrong again. There appears to me no ground whatever upon which, consistently with your forms and usages, yon can agree to hear Counsel on behalf of her Majesty, as prayed by this petition, there being in fact ;to proceeding now before the House respecting which the prayer of such a petition can be complied with. - ' Lord flow.ND—My Lords, the Noble and Learned Lot d argues, that we are not to do wrong now because we did Wrong before, but 1 want to know in what way the forms and usages of the House can be applied in the strict and technical way contended for by Noble Lords on the other vide to this case, which is altogether imprecedent-. e(l, and entirely anomalous. Sinew me any simi lar case of a criminal charge against any-indivi dual being laid upon the Table of this House, and . then I will spew what orders and rules of this House apply to such a proceeding. The thing is altogether upprecedented, and it is therefore in vain to talk of applying to the proceeding .roles and usages of-the House, which can have': no ap plication. As to tire argument, that the Queen cannot be supposed to have any know page of what is passing in this House, if such an argument is carried to its strict extent, it must go to present all petitions agaiast any 13111 before the House ; but such an ar gument is so contrary to common sense, and to' what is continu:slly evident before us, that it would be idle to make a discussion about it. The Noble Lord (Elletiborougli) says he would do equal and impartial justice, the same to the Queen as to the lowest individual ; but can he adduce an instance of a Secret Committee having Papers re ferred to them respecting the conduct of ally hum ble individual, and laying a direct and positive charge against that individual upon the Table of this House I Where, then, is the analogy, and how can the case of the Queen be disposed of by such an argument ? The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, with regard to the charge of our prejudging the case through the medium of that Report, says, that Jurymen are its the habit of divesting their minds of what they have heard, when a prisoner is to be tried who has tnrevionsly confessed his guilt. But will the Noble and Learned Lord assert, that the same Jurymen try the inisoner who heard his confession of guilt ? And is it not a val d objection to a Juryman that he had already investigated the case of the pri soner whose trial is called on ? i cannot,therefore, see, tinder all the eircumstauces of this extrdor 7 (Homy ease, what objection tbere into the hear ing Counsel on behalf of her Majesty, as prayed by this Petition. The Margness of BUCKINGHAM concurred with his Noble Friend, that the House had placed itself in a situation of some difficulty, by agreeing, in the former instance, to hear Counsel at the Bar. But there was this difference between the present case, and that in which the Petition was assented to ; that then there was a proceeding pending, whereas now there was none. In the present in stance their Lordships had , appointed a Secret Committee, they had suspended the sitting of that Committee, and in the interval her Majesty bad applid to he heard by Counsel against the pro• creding. It was possible that their Lordships might, after the arguments of Counsel, have pre vented the meeting of the Secret Committee, and voted that they should proceed no further. But what was their situation now The Committee had made their Report, and the Noble E ar l h a d given notice of a Bill founded on that Report : in the interval there was no proceeding. Suppose then that they were permitted to plead, on what proceeding could the House divide, after having heard the arguments ? They would not determine that the Noble Lord should not bring in his. Bill. What !hell could they do the moment after Coun sel had withdrawn, which they could not have done without hearing one word of the argument ? Her Majesty did not ay to he heard against the proceeding. 'There was none before the House. When the proceeding was illVitUted, then %%as the time to make any application connected with her defence, and God forbid that lie, or any one, • should object to grant any thing, which might he necessary to her defence, or, it possible, her justification. The Eat! of DARNLEY contended that the Re port of the Committee was a proceeding, and one of the most serious oatore, Oil which her Majesty had a right to present a Petition. The situation in which they stood was one io which they had no analogy to guide them, and they were placed in that situation by a series of meaSures which ap peared to him and his Noble Friends obj:ction able in many respects. But how did they stand at present ? After referring the case of the Queen to a Secret Committee, a Committee, he would admit of the most honourable men, of men who were incapable of bringing in any Report but what the evidence would seem to justify, her Majesty had petitioned to be heard by Counsel. He knew nothing of the facts; he wished much that it was possible for him to know no more ; but if they refused the request of the Queen in the present instance, it would seem as if they had not granted her all the advantages which her defence required, and whicb were granted to other petitioners. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not be iosinced, by the arguments of the Noble Marquess, to refuse the application to be heard by Counsel on the present occasion. Lord DAcRE said, that her Mrsjesty having beard, no matter by what means, that distinct charges were preferred against her, was naturally anxious, and prepared to defend herself as far as i t wa s possible to proceed at present, and to state weighty matters, which in justice to her further defence required to be stated in this stage of the proceedings. Ha trust i cd that the House would feel the propriety of acquiescing i❑ such a re quest. . _ 'lie question for proceeding to call in Counsel trAs then pnt from the Woolsack, and negative wi.liout a division. ROYAL BILL OF DIVORCE. The Earl of LIVERPOOL.—My Lords, in the discharge of a mostpainful duty, I rise to present the Bill which I now hold in my hand. In doing so, I feel tha1 16 .4 shall beet consult your'wisli'es, -My 'ciao inctirete4oo4.4ll‘h e d which! is due to all parties concerned, by it in the piesent stage from any details respecting the im portant matter referred to in the preamble of the Bill. That preamble :•ill speak for itself, and 'it will be for those who are officially employed in this distressing case to prove at your Lord ships' bar, the allegations contained in the pream ble. Under these circumstances your Lordships would no doubt be impressed with the deepest regret, if any thing should take place that could have a tendency to create more prejudice than seems to arise necessarily out of every case of accusation. Neithei am I disposed to revive former discussions by what I shall offer this night ; but I must say with my Noble Friend on the Woolsack, that after the best consideration I could give the question, I still remain of opinion, that if we were to retrace our steps again, I know not how the House could move in any other manner. I know that the course of impeachment was su;• gested, but I stated before the difficulties to which that proceeding was liable. Without arguing the objections over again, or undervaluing the argu ments opposed on the other side, 1 must still as sert that the course adopted was that which re commended itself upon every ground of constitu tional principle and analogy. It was at least doubtful whether an impeachment could be sits tained tinder all the circumstances of the case. My Noble Friend on the Woolsack doubted it. Another Noble Lord (Erskine), who has also sat on the Woolsack, and who was equally conspicuous for his talents and his knowledge of the criminal laws of this countty, doubted it ; so that looking at it Hs a question of doubt alone, I ask your Lordships whether we should be justified in commencing any proceedings with an tincertainty before our eyes as to whether we should he able to bring it to any conclusion or not ? That being the state of the course of impeachment, the Bill which 1 now present was. the only one open to your Lordships upon this subject. You know that the case could not be tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts, or in the Courts of Law. A Legislative proceeding was all that remained, and the only question then was, in which of the tw o. Houses of Parliersent the -proceeding ought to commence I stated on a former occasion, that it was competent to either House of Parliernent to commence, but that it was more peculiarly fie for this House to do so in the present lestance, because the forms of the Rouge, and the power it .possesses to examine evidence upon oath, afford a better chance that justice shall be done to both parties ; I stated farther, that this was not in the ordinary sense a Bill of Divorce, that it was not a case between two individuals, that it was not a mere question of injury between the King and the Queen, but between the Queen and the State also. Yet as it must refer in some degree to the mar riage between the Illustrious Persona, I thought, and I cill think it better, that the proceeding should originate with this House. The only question that remains is, whether the Bill ought to have been brought forward in the first instance on the responsibility of Ministers, or whether a Secret Committee ought to have been interposed. I have considered this poiut maturely—l have considered it both with reference to precedent and to principle, and upon either ground I con clude that the course we have adopted is correct. —Your Lordships will not find that any legis lative measure of this kind has ever been adopt ! ed without previous inquiry. It was not that the Executive Government shrunk from the re sponsibility, but that it was necessary to avoid the adoption of such a measure oft the mere ipse dixit of the Minister of the day, and to re quire the interposition of some intermediate body. It was not merely the question, whether the evi dence was sufficient that the Committee had to determine, but all the various considerations con nected with the nature of the evidence, and the dangers of disclosure, and whether those consi derations were such as to warrant or discounte nance the Adoption of any proceeding. There is no mode of shaping an accusation so as to avoid the excitement of sonic prejudice against the ac cused. The mere commitment of an individual by a Magistrate, excites a prejudice against that individual to a certain extent. It is an evil, but an evil that cannot be avoided ; it is an imperfec tion, but one that is inseparable from the admi nistration of justice; and all that remains for us is, to cboose between the alternative which u.eces• sity imposes, either to abandon investigation al together, or to adopt it under a disadvantage from which we have no power to separate it. Bet this is not a question respecting an individual only, it is a great State question, anti I do not feel that the course we have adopted is in any degree in consistent with those principles. of 'justice which we have all an equal interest in maintaining. The preamble states as much, particularly with respect to the number and nature of the of fences, as will justify Parliament in assuming, that the allegations can be proved, in depriving her Majesty of all her rights and prerogatives as Queen Consort, and dissolving the marriage as a necessary consequence. This is the full extent of the Bill—there are no other penal consequences in its enactments, which are framed in such a manner, as not to bear with any severity th,rt could be avoided against the illustrious iudiei dual who is the object of their.—As to the question of the provision which it may be pro per to make for her Majesty in case .tlie charges should be substantiated by evidence, that will more properly become the subject of consideration, hereafter in another place. The es sence of tl►e charge is founded in the pream ble. On that ground, when the Bill proceeds to the second reading, it will be necessary that we should go to the proof. You; Lordships will no doubt, discharge this duty as you have done every other in which you have been engaged, in such a manner as to entitle you to the respect and confidence of the country. It is my intention to move, it your Lordships should consent to the first reading of this Bill, that a copy of it sha:l be furnished to the Illustrious Person whose station and privileges it affects. lam indifferent whether I now appoint a day for the second reading, st i "‘ ject to any postponement which her MajestY 5 convenience may reqnire, or I -it without fi)c*" ing any period tor a few clays,z til her dck s toti" ..„..-Q. is known as to thecourse,.of procee2 l4 -0 ..will s ch.slie may think proper. tor adopt r er.. fiats it is as % Well that I should formally fix th i,g day fortnight, leaving it to he determined in t he interval what further postponement shall ta le place. The subject, 1 can assure your Loyd`; ships, give me, in common with every other man in the country, the greatest pain. We all feel deeplt on the occasion ; but it there is any one class rat persons who may be supposed to feel more tit° others, it is natural to think that those who " r 4 entrusted by hi s M a j es ty w i t h t h e execut ive G°' vernrnent, and who, in the performance of the ir duty, came forward on this painful occasions should be the persons to feel the most. it hp}' been our endeavour to discharge o ur d u ty with all justice and lenity towards the Illustrious Person' and it is a satisfaction to reflect that there ar cl no precedents for the last two hundred year s ' except in the case of one individual, Who never came to this country, or appeared a s Queen, in which even a whisper has been knov irk to circulate against the character of the Queen Consort. It is a satisfaction to re' fleet also upon the benefit which the country has experienced during the last six years from the example of the Illustrious Individual W VI filled the Throne, and reflected by her conduc t such purity on the public morals. It would have been a fortunate circumstance, I shall rilwaffr contend, if the shame and scandal which must a" tend such an investigation, whatever the resu lt may be, could have been avoided i ban we o re placed in a situation which leaves us no al.erot' live. The question is nut the impunity of god r ' but the trial of guilt. Cod grant that the 9C# cased may be a ble t o disprove the charges ; b ul however that may be, there remains but °°' straight-forward course for voo, mv Lords; I 31/ : confident you will adopt it ; I am confident l ot` . will do your duty ; and whatever morneota r i, clamour may exist, the country in the end ~ rill: do yon justice. The Bill, of which the following is a litera l copy, Was then read by the Clerk : .. •_ " A Bill to deprive her Majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabet h ' of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Pririleges, and Pretca' sions, of Queen Consort of this Realm, and,to dissolve Or" Marriage between his Majesty and the said Queen. " Whereas in the year 1814, her Majesty, Caroline Awe" Elizabeth, then Princess of Wales, and now Queen Consor t of this realm, being at Milan, in Italy, engaged' in her set' vice in a menial situation, one Bartointao Pergami, other wise Bartolomaßergaimi, a foreigner of low station, who W I before served in a similar capacity : " And whereas, after the said- Ilartolomo Pergami, °thee wise Bartolomo Bergami, had so entered the. service of be t ' Royal Highness the said Princess of Wales, a most unkrecoPe ing and disgusting intimacy commenced between her Rocal Highness and the said Bartoloino Pergami, otherwise P l ' tolomo Bergami . • " And whereas her Royal Highness not wily advanced I t ' e said Bartolomo Pergawi, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, t ° a high situation in her Royal Highness's household, and tr ceived hint into- her service, and that in high and confid e ' s ' tial situations. about her Royal Highness's person, Nut 6° stowed upon him other great and extraordinarc marks of f tv • your and distinction, obtained for him Orders of K n ighthe" d and Titles of Honour, and conferred upon him a pretend ed Order of Knighthood, which her Royal Highness had tak en npon herself to institute without any just or lawful O r thority: "And whereas her said Royal Highness, whilst the O ki Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, was rA her said service, further unmindful of her exalted rank a ts ` station and of her duty to your Majesty, and wholly regard less of her own honour and character, conducted herself i rr wards the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartol°l° Bergami, and in other respects, both in public and private' in the various places and countries which her Royal FO Y [less visited, with indecent and offensive familiarity and free' dorm, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adollei ° intercourse with the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise 1331. tolomo Bergami, which continued for a long p er i o d of tint' during her Royal Highness's residence abroad, by which CO ll ' . duct of her said Royal Highness, great scandal and vii ita : nour have been brought upon your Majesty's family and O a ': kingdom. Therefore, to manifest our deep senses of 6uc f scandalous, disgraceful, and vicious conduct on the Pa rt e her said Majesty, by which she has violated the JOY si' owed to vour Majesty, and has rendered herself unworthy °f the exalted rank and station of Queen Consort of this Re 3l°l' and to evince our just regard for the dignity of the Cra' e , and the honour of this. Nation, we, your Majesty's most dti t tiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Tene t :, and Commons in Parliament assembled, do hereby it' by your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enactea.o the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the ad ° and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and C eti i : , mans in this present Parliament assembled, and by tb e thority of the same, that her said Majesty Caroline A"' e b ) , Elizabeth, front and after the passing of this Act, and is hereby deprived of the title of Queen, and of a ll prerogatives, rights, privileges and exemptions appertaillow to her as Queen Consort of this Realm ; and that her for Majesty shall, from and after the passing of this A ct, iog ever be disabled and rendered incapable of using, exe rei ha t and enjoying the sante, or any of them; and moreover, t"),, the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline 'no, lia Elizabeth, be and the same is hereby from h e ncefor tb ever wholly dissolved, annalled a,;(1 mathe void to all i n"oo, -‘ constructions and purposes whatsoever." 'of After the Bill was read a firs: time, the E,rl to LIVERrooL moved, that Copies should be se a l I er ilhiesty, and her Alaiesty's Attorney ( 4 "f and also to the King's Attorney . General, was Ea agreed Ga to. t lt Eat lu.v observed, that the more he On . li dered the objections against the mode in A W r i ni C eil they were proceeding, the more he was co n "' j o • in those objections. The Bill, he t hough l 'ed stead of sating generally the criminality iloP:" of to her Alajefity, should specify the partical4rwed time and place, in Under that she might be el l ye r, to meet !he allegltions. The preamble , 11"``'e in did no such thing, a n d therefore was sv auli n o g iv e that cenainty of debcriptiou l'e r tie ?F T , k no. S ty li vi in a Tion tff Ler read trite ( Zee tied, Me in rro,, * LI S: dte evi ve 1 . 1 d en ; tim e %lon . .44)iii e Tr. 4„ (i a utr l d t ilisti, tai ireita pre ct fro/4 as h e 0116 t4e; Th fai r • h 4 t'Y cJ Th, t ra , , iutghr