The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-08 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. THE QUEEN. [Continuation of FesterdaN's Proceedings.] Lord SHEFFIELD said, that he should not have thought it worth his while to notice the allusions in which he was included, if he had not been de sireatof appearing to the 'Noble Lords, for whom he had a great respect,' to haw had sufficient reasiin 'for ocrasiorial 'absence. He had been ex treniely ill since the adjournment of the Honse, and he came up on - the 3d of October ) at the hazard of. his life, to'attend his duty in that House ; but when he did not attend it was at the urgent solicitation of hiS Medical. advisers. He was credibly informed, however, that he had lost nothing •by not attending the debates, but that he was savellsonie Mortification by 'not being a witness to certain concessions and submissions ; that he always understood their Lordships should be'guided•b'y the writtenevidence, and no other; that it should be recollected the , written evidence alone guided 'the decisions of the Court of Chan cery, and 'also -Doctors' Commons ; and 'he pre sumed to say, he was as well acquainted with the evidence as any of their LOrdships. But he par ticUlarly protested against the suggestion, that it was unfair to her Majesty's cause to decide on the written evidence, and insisted that it was in finitely more favourable . to the Queen, because that evidence did not retord many prevarications, eyasions; Change . 'of countenance, and other symp toms, that might have made .a very unfavourable impression.' lie must repeat, that' he had been extremely ill, : and was now far from well •; that hr 'could • most heartily have changed situations in respect to health with any of the Noble Lords opposite ; and perhaps the bleedings, the blis terings, the inirgations he had undergone, might bave cooled them, and done theM a deal, of good. The Earl of CAus;AnyoN said, it had never occurredAo'him that those who did not hear the whole of the evidence for and against the Bill, could be competent to give a .vote in a case of this description: Attendance during the pro ceedings of every day and every hour was neces sary ; for,the.absence of_ an hour during an im portant'peried might influence their 'Lordships in voting. .This. was certainly a matter in the 'discretion of their Lordships, and he was far from saying that it was wrong that it should thus be left to their discretion With respect to the Protest before there,. he could have wished cer tain. unguarded expressions tb have been omitted; at the same time, .considering the painful situa tion in which her Majesty was placed, he thought the greatest latitude and indulgence ought 'to*be allowed. When her Majesty stated that Noble Lords came from the Committee with their minds biassed by a mass or, slander, he should have been better pleased if the expression had been more achrate, and had alleged that they came under such circumstances as rendered it almost impossible for the human mind to form an itn partial judgment.' For himself, he declared that he would hardly have trusted himself to come forward as an impartial Judge had lie been pre viously placed on that Committee. After what had taken place, had he been Counsel for the Queen '(which, thank GOd! he. was not) he thought he should have advised no further appeal to their Lordships in any future stage of these pro ceedings. Of all the calamities which had grown out of this great national calamity, he considered the declarations made in that House, that day, were . not the lea St. - Those declarations which went to•assert a right to condemn' the Queen withOu.t hearing the whole of the evidence, ap pe-aretitO him calcUlated to 'mince their Lordships to.trample'on the vital principles of British justice. He had alwayS understood it to be a vital prin ciple 'of justice as administered in this country, that no accused person should be convicted but on oral testimony. Yet there were Noble Lords who presumed to condemn their Queen without having heard a single witness on her behalf, and without having . heard , or being able to read a word of the defence ; and under such circum stances a Noble - Duke was willing to legislate ex po.s't facto, condemning his Queen for a crime unknown to the law. It was with regret that he bad 'beard a Noble' Lord 'in the evening of an useful and honourable, life, declare, 'that though he had' not been - present during the whole pro- ceeding, he would accord the severest possible measure of punishment. The House had been called over, in order that no Peer should vote who had not attended ; but if that Noble Lord could have the right of voting, without having heard the defence, 'why should he not have the privilege of voting by proiy ? Why were proxies 'excluded, but from an idea that it was improper for those to vote on the question who had not heard the evidence. The vote of the proxy might be good, - but it was objected, that the party had not had - the advantage of witnessing the proceed ings. Under all the • circumstances of the case, their Lordships Would not relax to much, if they abated the strictness of their rules, so as not to exclude- the unfortunate Lady, who was the sub ject of the Bill, from making that representation to their Lordships which she was desirous of placing on their J ournals. He hoped there was nothing so informal in the course she bad taken as toinduce their Lordships not to receive it, and he wished the conduct of their Lordships in this proceeding ' might soon. be forgotten ; because, while it was remembered, the character of their Lordships' House must suffer in the estimation of the country and the world. The Loam CHANCELLOR said, that the Noble Lord who had then the honour of addressing the House,- had not, as they knew, been absent during any part of the proceedings. He had heard Of 'no disinclination ; he, felt ne disinclina tion himself to receive, in some form or other, the matters contained in the Paper of her Majesty. The , view which he took of it was this. As the Protest, which her Majesty thought proper to draw up, contained matter inconsistent with the dignity of the house, and reflecting on the conduct of 1' Lords in that House, and yet as he thought that it ought to be received, the prop2r course would be to adopt some mode of expressing their opinion not too strictly, with regard to the cir. stancesAmder. which it was received. He had nothing to say respecting his own : absence, having never been, absent, but a great deal must necessarily beleftto the discretioti of Noble Lords themselves, as to whether they would vote or not. In cases of impeachment, proxies could not be ,ad • naitiaTliut he knew of many cases of impeach , ment, in which Noble Lords had voted without hearing. the whole of the evidence. With respect to the observations upon the votes of such Noble' -Lards as the House had thought pro per to appoint on the Secret Committee, although he could not and would not ever shrink from the avowal that he was one of those who bad advised the communication to the House on the subject of the contents of certain papers, and although he was one of those whom their - Lordships had ap pointed to form the Committee 'to -which those papers were referred, yet he Mold not, looking back to what had been done in all former cases, refuse to act in the discharge of his duty and the exercise of his right' as a Peer, to vote upon the Bill. And if their Lordships objected to the exercise of the right of voting- by such pe . rsons as, for the convenience of the House, they appointed to make the preliminary inquiry, he must say they would. violate all the principles by which that House had hitherto been guided in its pro ceedings: HiS Lordship then moved a Resolu tion in the forme of an' Amendment, declaring that the House, notwithstanding the exception which it might take.to some points of the matter contained in the Paper, did, nevertheless, under all the circumstances, consent to receive the same as A representation of wlutt her Majeity to state further in her defence in.the present stage of the Bill. Such a'ResolutiOn would; if the House agreed to it, remove the obnoxious effeCts of 'some of the points contained in the paper.._ Lord D.tcitE concurred in the suggestion o the'Lord ChancellOr: • The Earl of .Do)io'unumonE said, that although he had not lately been 'in the habit of agreeing with his Noble Friend near him (Lord Carnar von), yet he did .most cordially concur with him in opinion on this occasion, and thought the whole 'of' this paper should be received. He did not, tor his own part, feel at all touched by that ob jectionable matter, which made Noble LOrds start uP in defence of their conduct, lie did not get up to defend himself, because he went into the Committee with his eyes open ; and having been a Member of.the CoMmittee, he afterwards came into the nouse, determined to discharge what he conceived to be his boanden duty. lie should not, therefore, enter into any defence of his conduct, but to say, that he thought every facilityl ought 'to' be given to the adMission of whatever was said by a person placed in the situation of an accused party. But Was there any thing new in, the paper submitted by the Il lustrious Person ? Was there any thing that had not been bandied about before from one side of the House to the other, and repeated over and over again by the Counsel at the Bar ? The Illus trious Person had protested'her innocence—so she did from the beginning; she had objected to her Judges—so she did from the beginning ; she had objected to her prosecutors—so she did through out the whole. proceeding.—There was only one new ground of objection, as to the propriety of those Noble Lords Voting on the Case who had not been present during the whole of the pro ceedings. It was not for him to attempt to de fend those Noble Lords. They had spoken for themselves, and the House had heard—he would not say their defence, but their justification. He thought, as he had said before, that every faci lity should be given to the reception of what might be said by a party under accusation ; and he should therefore vote for the admission of this Protest. The Earl of LAUDERDALE suggested that the word " justly " should be inserted in the Reso lution proposed by the Lord Chancellor, imme diately after the -word " might." The Resoltz lion would then run thus :—" Notwithstanding the exception which the House might justly take," &c. Earl GREY said, he was resolved to take no part in the other stages of this Bill further than merely to give his: vote. He saw no advantage which could result from the Amendment of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, though he was not inclined to oppose it. There were undoubtedly circumstances which might justify the House in taking exceptions to any pa per 'that might be - presented for reception, but in this case he saw none. He, on the contrary, thought the exceptions - taken 'by her Majesty to be most just—not certainly with respect to their Lordships' competency to entertain the. question, but assto the mode they had adopted in doing so. I t was most extraordinary how SomeNobleLdrds,who had heard the whole evidence for the prosecution, but not a word,not even a syllable, of the evidence for the defence," thought it consistent with their honour, and could reconcile it to theft conscience, Co vote in support of this Bill at present.—lt was not for him, however, to,judge of their motives— they were answerable for them to God and their Own conscience.' All be would say was, that he thought it most singular, when their Lordships had. declared they were not to vote by proxy, that they shOuld appear in that House thernselves as their own proxies. lie congratulated a Noble Duke on hi s new ly-disc overe d objections to ex post facto laws, when he found them likely to affect himself.—(A laugh.)—He contended that the exception taken - by her Majesty against those Noble Lords who had not • heard her de fence was just ; as to the accusers, the exception which had been taken to them was also just. 'They ought not to sit as J udges iri the case. He would not be understood as imputing any impro per motives to those Noble Lords who had been on the Secret Committee, but he would say they were exposed to have their feelings warped by Prejudice, and that exceptions would, under such circumstances, be taken to ',persons who were selected to serve on a common Jury. He thought the Queen perfectly justified in making an ex ception to them. He would conclude these few observations by again stating, that he did not consider the exception Just with regard to the matter of inquiry, but with regard to irregularity of the proceeding. ti Lo 4 REDESDALE declared that Ire could see .no. impr,o priety.Th the menshurs of the Secret Committee i'sitkig On question. It s was - _contrary toi•ete,u prirscepke-of.jfistige reason-.that when a-prerious-mqurry was nrcessaryin bringing forward any measure, those .Peers who had beets engaged in that ingoiry, should he disqualified on that account from tak ing part in the measure itself. . _ . The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question to - the House, " That rtotwithstamtinz the exceptions to the Protest of her Niajesfy. the I-louse wOuld receive it as the representa tion of her Majesty's case * It Warcarried non. con. , ' ' ' COMMITTF,E ON THE BILL. The" arl of LIYEIIPQOL inured, that the Bill be com mitted. Load DARNLEY, in conformity with his conduct and opi nion upon the whole Measure against the Queen, ruse to pro test aL:aitast the present part of the proceeding, as he had dune against every other pail of it He could not'believe that any Peer in that Honse could sup Lose that the Bill would eyerspass Into a law; the'injostic'e was so flOgrant towards her Majesty, that he dreaded the result: — The greater pat ofthe majority in favour of the sec'o'nd reading of the 'Bill were on the secret Committee, and a greater number than the majority, consiaat nig of the members of the Committee, and persons in the house hold of the King, sat in that House, and g ave their votes against her Nlajesty. Ile congratulated theHouse upon the vote they had come to upon this occasion. It confirmed the opinion he all along had of the case. With the inconclusive evidence which they had beard, it was impossible to suppose that this Bill would pass through all its st:aget .in all the branches of the Legislature. It was a measure which was un necessary, inasmuch as it might have been avoided; and, above all, it was not on incontrorert ible evidence, on which • alone; 'all who felt as he 'did; could consent to vote for it. How cou ld any one say, that the judgments of those who came to the consideration of this case fresh from the Secret Committee, 'were tree from bias ? Taking into the account the infirmities of human nature, with* the experience of the late division before their eyes, how was it pOssible to enter tain such an opinion? A large proportion of the majority was constituted of the accusers of • her Majesty them selves. A large proportion was also wanstitnted of • those who had received recent favours from the Crown. And there was one fact which bore On this view of the case more than any thing else---he meant the fact of ten junior Barons having said " Content," and eigh teen senior Bat ors having said " Not Content." It was i•o -:possible to draw any but one inference from this circum stance. He had certainly understood that an understanding •existed,-that, in the 'event of any Noble Lords being unable to attend during what was the most material part of the case (the Defence), should not.he conipetent to vote. He assured heir Lordships that his opposition did not spring from any party motires. It arose from much higher motives than the paltry consideration of which • set of men should be air office. The existence of themselves, the safety of the State, and the laottour of the Crown, were all too deeply involved in this irroceedisig to admit-of any apology for the interference of party feelings in the disposal of. it. - For these reasons he took That opportunity of entering his protest against the iurther -progress of this Bill. Lord SHEFFIELD said, a few words in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudihle below the liar. The question, I hat the Hodge' do then resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, was then last and carried ; Lord Shaftesbury being appointed Chairman of the Committee. The Earl of LIVEItI'OOL then rose, and entered into the question as to the merits of the Preamble of the Bill. The only question for the consideratiim of the House was, whether thc.Preamble of the Bill had been proved or not ? He should therefore state the view which he - took of that question— whether the allegations it; the Preamble had been established by the evidence which, had been print:lced at the Bar of the House. The first . alteration which he Wished to have made was, the putting the :mine of Ilergami right as it ought to be. Perhaps lie could best explain to the House what he wished to be dune in this and other respects, by reading over the Pre amble of the Bill, pOinting out as he went on the desired al•• terations. The Noble Lord then read as follows : - - - . "Whereas, in the year her Majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then Princess of Wales, but now Queen of Eng land, being at the Court of Milan, engaged . in tier service one Bart holomo Bergami,' or Bartholomew Pergami." The Noble Lind here observed, that he should move, that in lieu of these names heinserted— " Bartolomeo Bergami, a foreigner, of low situation in life, and afterwards the most unbecoming and indecent fa thiliarities took place between her Royal Highite'ss and the said Bartolomeo; and her Royal Highness not only ad6lnced f him to high situation nerhousehold, but received also many of his relatives into her set rice it, inferior and other situations." So far the allegations bad been proved. The next allega tion, however, was-- 7 " and ale obtained fur him several titles and honours." He meant to more also that these words be left out ; not that be donhted the faCt, but he thought it had not been proved by direct testimony. The preamble further set forth, that she "bestowed upon him various marks of distinction and favour, and took upon herself to confer upon him the Order of Knighthood, and pretended to insti tute an Order of Knighthood without the authority of your Majesty." This, too, said the Noble Lord, has been prored, and is most material. " 11nd whereas also, whilst the said Bartolinneo Berganti was in her service, unmindtul of her high station and dignity, she conducted herself both in puhlic and private, in the various place', with indecent and offensive familiarities and freedoms towards the same Bartolomeo." The only alteration he proposed here was, to leave out the word " the" before the word " various." The ground of his proposing this alteration was, that by this word " the," all the places and countries in which her Majesty had been were signified, and he admitted that that had not been proved.— When the Hoarse came to discuss that particular part of the preamble, he would refer to jgle several different pui►.ts in the evidence which proved the indecent and offensive &c.: " and carried on with him a disgraceful, licenti,mc, and adulterous intercourse." This was the whole charge. in conclusion, the preamble stated," to the great scandal of your Majesty's Royal Family, and to the dishonour of the kingdom, and manifested a most scandalous, disgraceful, and vicious conduct towards the said Bartolomeo." These were the terms of the Preamble, .and the only material alteration was the change in-the name, and, what was not very material, the omissio► of the monosyllable " the." He hat/ thought it right to state the view he had taken of this subject, in order that his sentiments might be understood when the• came to the discussion afterwards. The better way far them to proceed would be, for the Chairman to read the Pre amble, anti when any thing objectionable occurred, to stop and state it. Lord SHAFTESBURY accordingly proceeded to read through the Preamble. - Lord ERSKINE said, they should leave out the charge of adbltcrons intercourse, as it was not proved ; they were leav ing out that which was true, and keeping in that which was false and unproved. - Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that the words " she obtain ed for him varions titles and honours," should not he struck out, for it was a fact that proved the partiality of her Majes ty towards Bergami. He could only understand this phrase as signifying that Bergami had'received them as " marks of distinction ; for us these were not specified, he should consi der it absurd to take.t hese words away. They ought also to leave out the words " conferred the honour of knighthood upon him." They must either omit the. whole s►r retain► all. Lord GRENVILLE supported the opinion of Lord Ellen borough. The Eat' of LAUDERDALE conceived that it was a mate rial circumstance, and ought not to he omitted, as it was one of the facts leading to an inference that tie adulterous intercourse had taken place. He thought it world be very dangerous to leave out so important a statement. The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought with the Noble Earl, that the fact in'question was material, and should remain in the preamble. Lord ELLENBOROUGH maintained, that if they left out one part and not the other, they would destroy the whole gnostic of distinctions. The question Was then pat, that the words in the pream ble, stating, " that her Majesty conferred upon him ho nours of knighthood and titles," be expunged. The motion was carried. The Clei . !.. continnett reading until lie came to the words which stated licrgami's name without the "alias," when Earl GROSVENOR rose, and said, he should be glad to know upon what informatiofi, public or private, the Noble Earl had made this very important discovery respecting Ber 7 gami's exact name. • The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that in answer to the wise observation'of the Noble Earl , he.had to infOrm him, that the information came from the diploma of the Order of St. Caroline, which was in evidence.—(A Laugh.) Lord KING said be was happy the alias had been removed from Bergami's name. Perhaps the. Noble Lords opposite, would ❑uw endeavour to remove it from the names of Sacetti and Dumont, *ho bad several aliases affixed to their name . —(A Laugh.) The Clerk continued reading until he came to the Wor d ' " other respects." Lord ELLENBOROUGH said be objected to these words. The expression was indefinite, and had not been proved. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he felt-obliged to the Noble Lord forharing brotight this circumstance under his attell'' .; tion. He- shun proVed to chew their'Lordships the groutul! uponNstich this act hat), in i 3 pillion, been e4tablisheal \ It was of steealt s„ axcircum aAlee' leading to the proof dultetY, beet a 3 merely expla ato -of the degrading CO cz ill uct. The first point which he cons eivi as proved, circumstance attending the masked ha I aN Naples, the end co! the year 1814, or beginning of the year •1 815. it was prov ed was th e . _that_her, Royal Highneka went to that ball in a-hired car-. riage, accompanied by her Chamberlain and by Bergami, then a Courier, and in the dress of a Courier. This alone, he c oati ceived, warranted the statement in the preamble. He wo uld • put it to their Lordships' feelings whether, if one of their Lordship? wires went with the chambermaid and buttef in a hackney coach to the Italian Opera, they would no' consider it an act of degradation.—(Hear, hear, hear !) - a He merely put this to their 'Lordships' feelings. A u d it was particularly observable, that at this pert ° ,,' there were several persons of respectability in t he suite of her (Royal Highness who might have accompan it , her. She had then in her service Sir Win. Gell, Dr. Hollan d' Lady Elizabeth Forbes, Mr. Craven, Captain Hesse, and se' . veral other persons. He begged again to thank the Soh le l ' Lord for haring mentioned the circumstance. The Noble E ar " then read from the minutes the evidence as to the ma' d ball at Naples. Lord CARNARVON inquired what was the name of the witnesi whose evidence the Noble Earl was reading. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said it was the evidence of O h ; moot.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)—But as to the gon e, ' ( to the ball, tier evidence seas con fi rmed by that of Dr. 14° ,' 1 land.--(Cheers front the Ministerial benches.)— Xnd lie wow' here observe, that whatever value their Lordships were d' s '. posed to place on the evidence of - Dumont, she had ill this particular been confirmed, whilst her evidence aillowed .; easy contradiction. It had been proved by Dumont, and o° contradicted. t Lord CARNARVON said he would thank the Noble EM I to read that part of Dr. Holland's evidence. 'l'ke Noble Earl accordingly referred to the evidence of " e t i Holland, respecting the masked hall at Naples. Dr. H o tta!' said," I was at the ball only a short. time, and I do not 10 ,011 who went with her Royal Highness."--He (Lord 1.i" 1 " pool) had stated at the time, that it was only to to e fact of going to the hail Dumont was confirmed. i 4 did. not mean to say she had been confirmed a * to the going with Berganii. But he would confideut l i affirm, that she was not contradicted in those points vdt' et ; were capable of contradiction. He thought that fr" ° ' this point alone, the language of the preamble had hero s"ip"s ported ; but he could state another circumstance, which, . believed, was not disputed. Iler Ro y al Highness had invi te Bergaini to her table, while he was courier, and in the )keel of that situation. That was proved by Dumont, and ado."' ted by Hownam. The next fact was stronger than the W t. it. wus in evidence, that in the year 1816, at Syracuse, il' e birth-day of Bergami was celebrated with universal rejoiciog' The ship was illuminated, and the Princess walked oo t ,t deck, arm aud.arm with Bergaini, amid the shootings of t°;i crew, of " Long. live the Princess," " Long live the 13arolt:,, If Wig was not degradation, he knew not what could be ca' - 11.7 degradation. There was another celebration of Bergao" ' birth day at the Villa d'Este, but what be would particula rl y call their Lordships' attention to was the theatrical ex hiliiti''': at the Villa d'Este, in which her Royal Highness perform ed , a conspicuous character. When their Lordships cousider o ' the rank and even the age of her Royal Highness, and cio pled those circumstances with the fact of her publicly P ei. ; - forming before 200 persons, he.could nut but be convince that their Lordships would be satisfied her conduct was " d e : grading, offensive, and indecent." Hoe were several mittot circumstances which he should omit, as well as the indece'' familiarity which formed a distinct allegation, but upon th e incontrovertible facts of the mashed ball, the dining, and t he birth-day, and the circumstances attending those facts, the statement in the preamble was proved beyond all dispute. Lord ELLE:siIIOROUGH said, the question was, shall t he words, " iu other respects," be insetted or omitted. He (Lord Ellenborough) considered that the woods alluded t 4 offensive conduct with other persons, and not with Be, ga , "" He thought the words, "and in other respects," ought to be left out ; for it would be ungrammatical for the words to sou, in their present position, they velerred to some individua l, and that inuividual was Bergami. The Earl of LIVERPOOL then admitted the strength ° I , the Noble Lord's objection, and said li e was willing that t h e expression should be .truck out. The Earl of cmtNAnvoN, with reference to the obsj" ration of the Noble Earl respecting the Princess's perfor 3 r ance at the Villa d'Este, said he s h ou ld b e g l a d if t h e N"b' d Earl would iiiforin hint from the,strength of his political 0. - perience at What specific age (fur age be. ,had mentioned," 1 person,wa s fit t o t a k e th e .part of an automaton.—(.l latighl —The circumstances alluded to by the Noble Earl led, t' his (Tinian, to'a different conclus" ; lint if it should }yr th 4 pleasure of 't heir LOrtishiPs that this expression of degroW tion should stand, he trusted other words would be ititill , /bleed, su as to apply to Dumont, for no one could deny Ile a . ' if it was degrading to her Royal Highness to go to a Theatr e with Bergami, it was still 1410 TC Si to go with -Dumont. The Earl of DONOUGHNIORE thought the txart - s 9l l ought to stand. He had altogether dismissed th e evidence ° Dumont from his mind, bat 4111i - idyllt had been admitted hi the Queen's own witnesses, to sustain the PreaMble. Lord REDESDALE said the words ought its, to be mutt' ted ; they were proved "by the evidence of Dumont; :1;0 1 1 must assert that her evidence was very strong, and copilot , ' in many ofits pails, and was corroborated by Dr. Holland 0 113 Sir W. Gehl. ___ Lord LAUDERDALE followed Lord Redesdale, and tended that the worth ought to be omitted, for they were OW necessary. Lord DARLINGTON said, that the evidence of Diunno / ought to be rejected altogether, as unworthy of credit. Lord DONOUWIMORE objected to throwing the e vidrol of Majocci and .Dumont (as a Noble and Learned Lord 1. 31 stated) overboard. , He admitted that part of their evidenl was objectiortable; hot because part %Val impeached, that a i not say the whole was impeached and unworthy of credit. e The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that he never said th evidence of Nlajocci and Dumont ought to be thrown 0' 1 ; board. He thoright that the whole of the evider,,e ought 4, 3i he receivedond their Lordships would decide as to what p ar was impeached, and what part corroborated by other deuce and worthy of credit. The question was then put fur the omission trf the wor tl4 " arid in other respects," and carried. The next part of the Preamble was read, and on the Lid reading the words " 4dultrrotis intercourse" — Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that althuogh he was 1r 319 ; to agree that the (Ineett had been guilty of adultery, yet 3 5 t';i was convinced the feeling against the expediency of the 131. „ was so greet that it never could pass into a law, he c o uld assent to these words. The Earl of HARROWBY said, that the only question th eta before the House was, whether tIo4 allegation in the preatt'; ble of the Bill had been proved. He (Lore HarrOwiry) conv.inced that these allegations 11..1 been proved was force' • ~ however unwillingly, and with whatever pain, not to from saying soat that stage of the proceeding. Lord CALTHORPE wished the woods " adulterous course'' to be omitted, for the same reason as Lord Ellenho; rough, because it would be deciding, that although she was adultness she was good enough to he his wife. Lord LIVERPOOL. said that, in the present stage of t" Bill, the question eras 'nut one of expediency—it was, w hethe i the allegations had been. proved. Ire, therefore, called it?' those Noble Lords who had voted front the principle of r%P I : (Briley, merely to vote according to their views of the guilt 0! innocence of the defendant. Lord ERSKINE observed, that the Noble Earl had omit ted some things which were t roe, and certainly he might sent to the omission of those which were false. He cons' i tiered the Protest of her Majesty confirmatory evidence , her innocence; but if their Lordships were determine d think her otherwise, how coald . they deny she had h eel s guilty of an adulterous int ercour se and refuse to divorce h er 0 (Hear, hear !.) Lord GAGE strggeAed the word " suspicious intercour se, in the place of those to which Otjectiou had beets wade. The original.words were carried, Lord CAIINAIIVON jrroposed to introduce a clause to the following effect That, stibsequent to her Majesty's_r . f i turn, she had refused 50,0001. a year- of the public mono' , $ 1.4 the proffered homage of both li“uses of Parliament." , a E Lord LAUDRDALE said. that nothing to that effect .ua 'been proved, and toicildnot propel lv be entertained. Lord CARNARVON with-drew the Clause, but gave n oti4e that he would move it when the Report should be brought 1", Lord ELLENBORQUGHwas at at a loss to conceive 1 1 ° * . the Noble Earl could expect to bud on the Journals of 1 1 House. of CommonS, aHy proffer of the homage of the k lous of Lords. The Preamble then was carried, and the House proceed ed to discuss. the Clauses. , THE DIVORCE CLAUSE. This Clanie 'wing been read,. The Archbishop of YORK rose.—He knew, he