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 Journals. 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 his newly-discovered 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 Judges 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. Itswas-_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 gave 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 could 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 Word'
" 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
czill
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 proved
was the.
_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 coati
ceived, warranted the statement in the preamble. He would •
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. Aud
it was particularly observable, that at this pert°,,'
there were several persons of respectability in the
suite of her (Royal Highness who might have accompanit,
her. She had then in her service Sir Win. Gell, Dr. Holland'
Lady Elizabeth Forbes, Mr. Craven, Captain Hesse, and se'.
veral other persons. He begged again to thank the Sohlel '
Lord for haring mentioned the circumstance. The Noble Ear
"
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 Oh;
moot.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)—But as to the gone,'(
to the ball, tier evidence seas confirmed 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 EMI
to read that part of Dr. Holland's evidence.
'l'ke Noble Earl accordingly referred to the evidence of "eti
Holland, respecting the masked hall at Naples. Dr. Hotta!'
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 toe
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 confideutli
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 Royal Highness had invite
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 Wt.
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 particularly
call their Lordships' attention to was the theatrical exhiliiti''':
at the Villa d'Este, in which her Royal Highness performed
,
a conspicuous character. When their Lordships cousidero'
the rank and even the age of her Royal Highness, and cio
pled those circumstances with the fact of her publicly Pei.;
-forming before 200 persons, he.could nut but be convince
that their Lordships would be satisfied her conduct was " de:
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 the
incontrovertible facts of the mashed ball, the dining, and the
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 the
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 individual,
and that inuividual was Bergami.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL then admitted the strength °I,
the Noble Lord's objection, and said lie was willing that the
expression should be .truck out.
The Earl of cmtNAnvoN, with reference to the obsj"
ration of the Noble Earl respecting the Princess's perfor3r
ance at the Villa d'Este, said he should be glad if the 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,was fit to take the
.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 Ilea. '
if it was degrading to her Royal Highness to go to a Theatre
with Bergami, it was still 1410 TC Si to go with -Dumont.
The Earl of DONOUGHNIORE thought the txart-s9ll
ought to stand. He had altogether dismissed the 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;011
must assert that her evidence was very strong, and copilot,'
in many ofits pails, and was corroborated by Dr. Holland 0113
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 evidrol
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 ai
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 par
was impeached, and what part corroborated by other
deuce and worthy of credit.
The question was then put fur the omission trf the wortl4
" 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 1r319;
to agree that the (Ineett had been guilty of adultery, yet 35 t';i
was convinced the feeling against the expediency of the 131.„
was so greet that it never could pass into a law, he could
assent to these words.
The Earl of HARROWBY said, that the only question theta
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, whethei
the allegations had been. proved. Ire, therefore, called it?'
those Noble Lords who had voted front the principle of r%PI:
(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 determined
think her otherwise, how coald. they deny she had heels
guilty of an adulterous intercourse and refuse to divorce her
0

(Hear, hear !.)
Lord GAGE strggeAed the word " suspicious intercourse,
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.fi
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 noti4e
that he would move it when the Report should be brought 1",
Lord ELLENBORQUGHwas at at a loss to conceive 11°*.
the Noble Earl could expect to bud on the Journals of 11
House. of CommonS, aHy proffer of the homage of the klous
of Lords.
The Preamble then was carried, and the House proceeded
to discuss. the Clauses.
, THE DIVORCE CLAUSE.

This Clanie 'wing been read,.
The Archbishop of YORK rose.—He knew, he