The National Register.
London, England, 1820-10-30 00:00:00

Us

•

-.
.. '~-

-•~+is.

rated in the wayward indolgsoce of his tam plevourcs anti his
own passions. Now, toy Lords. how envoi I tneo ? 1.1 W... tit"! •
• M:01 ill the world who ii so hold as to come halle. your Lord-
shists, arid att. he has 0.111• C 01' sh has iiries to be
rettreosed, under statti eiretioi .:::..es! But ulthouah lamp ere
in many repcets ahovc the 1.. as of man, who dare ittiptoas y
affirm Mat i.. i • above the lanes of Gast I Is there one theme law
f Kings, and another for man ? Ate the vows of the Altar to
be binding on the peasant, and to he violated with it:wrothy by
the Prince? Is there one God for the poor individual, tate divine
law fur him, end soother for the t•ceptred monarch ! What was
the übj ct el tl.e sacred contract of marriage, but the happiness
of the individual s ? But where, my Lords, shall I look for the
joipianao of the illusttious accused—where 411411 I find one ti see
of comairt, Suring the wool: of her married life! Snail I look
to 1805? Shall I looh to 1815? or to the time when the inter •
course between the mother and the snail was fisrbulden ? Shall
I look to the time when that mother wa, exiled flout her country
and friends, and when the spirit of persecraion Wool:tiller every
step I I know, n:y Lords, that tile agitation of thi; sulaiset
shakes the Crown, and the dignity of di' Nloaarchy ; but it is
in the faithful discharge of a solemn duty that I have been com-
pelled ti advert to these painful circumstances; and I have dune
it with all the delicacy I have been able. It is hardly possible to
shew the diffhrence between his ease rind the proceedings in the
ordinary Courts. But what should we say of a husband, insensi-
ble to his own dishonour—Lila nusband offeting tiny thousand
pounds a year. not to restrain his wile from an adult:nuns hoer-
coarse which he believed tfille aas carry Mg on, but to permit its
eauestraioed iaditigenee ? What would we say ui an inetivoloat
coming to claim justice who had said to his wite, "Go thy way."
not in thelanguage of the iletleemer, quoted by my frieua„ Mr.
Denman, "Go woo and sin no more," bid "Go—bid/age tho
et int btu, itarsion.retel o, cll the pleasuresefodaltcrons idtereont sr,
and pa shad be furnished with the hlcldi ample watts !"
I sin happy, toy Lonls, to be able to say, that I shall not be
under the necessity of introducing another topic. It ha; been
considered, by my Learned Friends, unnecessary to say tune word
in recrimination. This House, my Lords, has the power to press
this Bill,; but, unless you are prepared to violate the laws of
God and man—unless the Bench, willth farms part of the Con •
stitution, is prepared to abandon the tenets ef the Caispel--) let
cannot, and you shall not, pronounce for the divorce. Benne I
enter upon the short exathinatien of the evidence, which it is may
intention to pursue, permit me to say a few words as to the
principles by which you are bound to be directed in your judg-
ment upon this case. It is not to n.sk you to acquit the defendant
upon a pint of law, that I address you upon this point, but to
prevent those of your Lordships who arc not conversant with that
way of considering thecase, from being misled by the Learhstl
Counsel for the BilL The Solicitor General, in his summing
up, quoted the decision of the Learned Judge of the Consissory
Court. in the can of Loveden against Parker. Now, though to
the talent—the matchless talent—of my Learned Friend, no
man bows with greater deferenoe than 1, yet I am surprhad that
he has extracted a principle from a particular part of that case,
and applied it as a general principle."
Here Dr. LUSHINGTON read tile passage quoted from Sir Wm.
Scott's decision, by the Soheitor-General. It stated, that it was
not memory to prove the direct fact of adultery—a thing, in
most cases impossible. It is sufficient to have incidental cireum•
stances, leading to a conclusion of guilt, not to a rash conclusion.
" IVhat !" said Dr. 1.1:91IINGTON, " Do you think, by the
situation in which Sir Win, Scott was placed, when he delivered
this opinion. The case was under dissuasion and arvinent.—
Ile said tnis " Here are acts of indecent familiarity proved by
witnesses above all excostion. Here are intercepted letters front
Mrs. Loveden to Mt. Parker, ofsuch a nature and charaeter as
• many a woman who would enter into a brothel would be ashamed
to mention. I should not read those letters, but they contain the
most positive evidence that the fact 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 moved
that he has passed the night in Mrs. Loveden's chamber. In
another case, that of Mortimer v. :Mortimer, on the 11th of July,
iteedi. the Learned Judge insisted, when die Counael were on
the point of giving up re idea of arguing, ui on hearing the ar-
gument—and it fell to my lot to argue upon the case—although
convinced of the guilt of the woman, the Learned Judge ordered
additional evidence ; fur, said he, • I may have a form] convic-
tion of her guilt; but, no judicial prone.'—" But, (continual
Doctor Ludtingions " I ant not to be supposed to ask thr your
verdict because there is no legal proof, but because theme is no
roof which could in any cast: inflaence a person of integrity,
judgment, and diligence, to suppose that theme was the sligatest
foundation for those charges. The case, as I understand it, is
this it—llece is an ample opportunity—here arc circumstances
coupled with the opportunity, whirls lead to a demonstration of
guile. Now that the opportunity of committing adultery should
be considered as a proof of it, there is not one at your Lordship,
so ignorant as to allow. I admit that if there were evident fend.
halides of an indecent nature existing between the parues, od
that opportunities of guilty enjoyment were sought sate,
woald be unnecessary to go any frther, but the circuits.
stances must be in the same degree of certainty as the oppor-
tunities. HI were arguing this as an ordinary case, I'll tell
you how I should treat it. I should shew you Dumont, and
Sacchi, and Rastelli to be perjured ; and then, if you would not
stop me befo'e the end of my argument, I sheath" throw up my
brief. %%That ! when I had proved that the four principal wit-
Leases against my client were perjured; to permit me to proceed.
Gracious God• where can be the security to life, and character,
and property ? If, when !slim you, that one, two, three, to
and five of the charges are supported by perjured witnesses, are
you to say, • Unless you prove the 6th and oth to he f.tlae upon
the sonic grounds. I shall deliver a verdict of Guilty ' It is
the order of Donne Providence that we are entailed to detect tool
conspiracies, by brinng to light circutuaancts which move the
perjury of those who sopport the charges; but that Power has
limited the means of elucidating the truth, and has not permitted
its to follow it buy mutt time bounas of necks a ty. The plaintiff in an
action is bound to coabitsli his case upori the most indisputalmo
evidence; much more is it incurnhent upon the man who aims
at taking away the lice or character, to fix the guilt by unsus-
pected testimony. lie should say, •• 'rhos far will I go, tett no
farther ;" not unit •• you, the victim of my revenge, shall at
least go with a stain iison ost, which nothing can efface ! "
Dr. Isusitin la (ON CUIIIIIIUtAI : My Lords, let us in the
first place inquire what was the conduce of the Queen towards
Berganii ? 'inc Attorney Genera] told your Lordships that i.e
wt ud shew that she was so 11,t1Cli Untie(' time 100 Mer of this domi-
neering version, that ha will nail pleastoe v.cic her's, and that
there vas such a CUI1311U1111iiltC(1 1.1111143T0' bCt WLell iitu.t its could
only be accounted tut by the Inst faaours Laving been couterred.
Now, my Lords, I um dertake to demonstrate by die evidence pito
duced, that no ate h tamiliarity, no such Int:wavy exited; that
there was no want of proper respet t in the one towards tic. other—
no want of a lei an, of the decencies of ordinal y life. I ant sure your
Lotilgigo %stood feel that I did not do my duty, alter making
bio&Mto assertion, it I aid not point out the CVidellC4 on which it
is ground:ll;l'ml t,y wlash, I say, it is indisputably hroveiL First,
then,lo) Lords, let::, Idea to the proofed th. Queeu sathetsaries;
let us ate %rum it is; ana how it deser. es to be looked air Fore-
most you have that memorable witness Majucci, and what does
ha swear? Th-t • Bergaini had more autaurity man the utter
Lopintos,. of Elm homeholtd—that there was ' rather a familiarity
twega her Royal Iliglinias and Bergatoi.' Good God ! sty
Lord,. what a phrase atter such an opening of the case,--there
was • rather a familiarity' between Meal! What a phrase flow
chosen a hoot one a .10 WY been 60 ntintietat to da.
t,46!r om rtaniag I.ts Royal Mistress; from ane :,was I 11:Uy •%:si
unc e,.re o; the prasecotion ! Ward as answer w hive, wilts,w e
oun..der 1110f..)Vut UM. my Learned Rtienu tare SolicitursGentral
put 411 hu quetasns so ingdrioasly. than tare witatas scald ors

r.