The National Register.
London, England, 1820-10-29 00:00:00

"4

343

rated in the wayward indulgence of his own pleasures and his
0411 passions. Now, my Lords, how etand I then? Live, there
A niaa in the world who is so bold as to canoe before your Lora-
l. 1.1!4, and Say lie has cause of compleiiit—he has injuries to be
ralreaaed, under such circunntaaees ! But although Kings are
in many respects above the laws of man, who dare imptottsiy
albino that lie is above the laws of God ? Is there one theme law
far Kings, and another for loan ? Arc the vows of the Altar to
be bitninig on the peasaut, and to be violated with impunity by
the thiinn? Is them one God for the poor individual, one civins
law far Lion and another for the sceptivel monarch ! What was
the object of the sacred contract of marriage, but the happiness
of the indiv:duale ? But where, my Lerch, shall I look tor the
har;neans of the illustrious accused—a: here shall I find one truce
of corntint, during the whole of het married life! Snail I look
to 1806? Shah I look to 1s13? or to the time when the inter•
course between the mother and the child was forbidden ? Shell
1 look to thc time alien that mother was exiled from her country
and friends, and when the spirit of persectu:on followed her every
step! I know, my Lords, that the agitation of this subject
shake; the Crown, and the dignity of the Monarchy ; but it is
in the faithful discharge of u solemn duty that I have been com-
pelled to advert to these painful circumstances; and 1 have dune
it with all the delicacy I hare been able. It is hardly passible to
spew the difference between !hie en,e and the proceedings in the
ordinary Courts. But what should we say of a litiAmitd,, insgnai.
ble to his own dishonour—ofd nusband of fitly thousand
pounds a years not to restrain his wife from an :Jule:roue inter-
course welch lie believed she was carrying on, but to permit its
unrustrained indulgence? What would we say of an individual
coining to claim junice who had said to his wire, "Go thy way:.
not in the language of the Redeemer, quoted by my friend. Mr.
Denman, •• Go My way and sin Na more," but "Go—he:tan- thy
stamina kpassion.rrtel ire till the ynusuresofadalteraus iiitenom
u/id you dual be furnished with Inc most ample owtris !"
I am huffy. my Lords. to be able to say, that I shall not be
under the neceasity of introducing another topic. It has been
coneidered, by my Learned Friends, unnecessary to say cue word
in reciimination. This House, my Lords, has the power to pass
Cf.' Bill; hut, unless you are prepared to violate tl.e laws of
God and •man—unless the Bench, w forms part of the Con •
satution, is prepared to abandon the tenets of the Gospel—nou
cannot, and you :hall not, pronounce fur the divorce. Before I
enter upon the ahort examination of the evidence, which it is my
intention to pursue, permit me to say u fey, words as to the
principles by which you are bound to be directed in your judg-
ment upon this case: It is not mask you to action the delendent
upon a point of law, that I address you upon this point, but to
prevent those of your Lordships who are not conversant with that
way of considering the case, trout being misled by the Learned
Counsel for the Bill. The Solicitor General, in his summing
tip, quoted the decision of the Learned Judge of tile Consissory
Court. in the case of Loveden against Parker. Now, dough to
the talent—the matchless talent—of my Learned Friend, no
man bows with greater dcfercnoe than 1, yet I am surprised thin
he has extracted a principle from a particular part of that case,
and applied it as a general principle.'
Here Dr. I.I.:SHINGTOII real tire passage quoted from Sir Wm.
Scott's decision, by the Solicitor-General. It stated, that it was
not necessary to prove the direct fact of adultery—a thing, iu
most cases impossible. It is sutlicient to have incidental cireum•
stances, leading to a conslusion of guilt, net to a rash conclusion.
What !" said Dr. LUSHINGTON, Do you think, by the
situation in which Sir Win. Scott was placed, when lie delivered
this opinion. The case was under discussion and argument.—
/le said this " Here are acts of indecent familiarity proved by
witnesses above all eideption. Here are intercepted letters from
Mrs. Loveden to Mr. Parker, ofauch a nature and character as
many a woman who would enter into a brothel would be usinuned
to mention. I should not read those letters, but they contain the
most positive evidence that the feet had taken place." These
letters had not been given in evidence, but a verdict was given
in the King's Bench for the defendant, although it was proved
that he had passed the night in Mrs. Lovedees Chamber. In
another case, that of Mortimer v. Mortimer, on the 12th of July,
11426, the Learned Judge insisted, when the Counsel were on
the point of giving up the idea of arguing, upon hearing the ar-
seaneett—and it full to my lot to argue upon the caso-odthough
convinced of the guilt of the woman, the Learned Judge ordered
additional evidence ; for, said he, • I may have a formal comic •
tion of bee guilt; but, no judicial proof.'—n• But, (continued
Doctor Lushington) " 1 am not to be supposed to ask for your
'verdict because there is no legal proof, but because there is no
proof which could in any case influence a person of integrity,
judgment, and diligence, to suppose that there was the slightest
foundation for those charges. The case, as I understand it, is
this s—Here is an ample opportunity—here are circumstances
coupled with the opportunity, which lead to a demonstration of
guilt. Now that the opportunity of committing adultery should
be considered as a proof of it, there is not one tat your Lordships
so ignorant as to allow. 1 admit that if there were evident fami-
liarities of an indecent nature existing bets een the parties, and
that opportunities of guilty arjoyment were sought after, it
would be unnecessary to go any further, but the eircuna.
stances must be in the same degree of certainty as the oppor-
tunities. If I were arguing this as an ordinary ease, I'll tell
you how I should treat it. I should sheet you Dumont, and
Sacchi, and Rastelli to be perjured ; and then, if you would not
stop me before the end of my argument, I should throw up my
betef. What when I had proved that the four principal wit-
misses agsinst my client were perjured, to permit me to proceed .
Gracious God, where can be the security to life, and charaetcr,
and property ? if, when I thew you, that one, two, three, tour,
and five of the charges are nipported by perjured witnesses, are
you to say, • Unless you prove the 6th and 7th to Le felae upon
the same grounds. I shall deliver a verdict of Guilty ? • It is
site order of Divine Providence that we are enabled to detect foul
conspiracies, by bringing to light circumstances which prove the
perjury of those who support the charge ; but that Power has
limited the means of elucidating the truth, alai ha, not permitted
us to follow it beyond the heunds of necesoty. The plaintiff in an
action is bound to establisn his case upon the most indisputable
evidence; much more is it incumbent upon the man vino aims
at raking away the life or character, to fix the guilt by unaus-
peered testimony. lie should say, •• Thus far will I go, but no
tariher;" not that •• you, the victim of my revenge, shall at
leaat ipt with a stain main you, which nothing Call efface ! "
Dr. Lunn/sot oe: continued:—" My Lords, let U 5 in the
brit place inquire what we.: the condor; cf the Queen ton a.ds
Bergson? The Attorney General told your Lordships that
would *hew ti.at she was so much under the power of this do:d-
oe:ring paasion, that his will and pleasure acre her's, and that
there was such a ectisummated familiarity beween them as could
only L. *Wonted Inc by the lest faroine Itavinn been conferred.
Now, my Lords. I undertake to demonstrate by the evidence pro.
Jewett, that no such familiarity, no such intimacy existed; that
there was no want of proner respect in the one towacds the other-.
no want of a regard of the decenciesof ordinary life. I ant sure your
lordships would feel that I did no: do my duty, after making so
broad an assertion, if I did not point out the evidence on whim it
is grounded, and by which, I say, it is loth., putably Frond. Fint,
then, soy Lords, let us look to the proof of the Quest s adversiries ;
let us see what It is ; and how it desert cs to be looked at ? Fore•
moat you have that memorable witness Majocci, and whet does
be swear? That • Ileteoni had more authority than the other
persons of the householu•—that there was • rattier a familiarity
between her Royal highnessp and Bergami.' Good God !
Lords, what a phrase atter such an opening of the caw,—Mitre
ass' rather a familiarity' between theill! What a plaint troth
se chosen a witness; from one who has been so nurtured to the
task of ruining has Royal Mistress; front one whom I may call
the ergs of the prosecution ! Wnat an answer to hive, when we
cawnler moreover tnat my Learned Friend the Solicitor-General
Put all Maims:ions oo ingeniously, that ti.e witness could in no