The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-07 00:00:00

Of late years the public attention had been directed to some
horrible cases of murder. In all of these the conviction
of the criminal, though to the satisfaction of the whole

country, had only taken place through a forced combina-
tion of circumstantial evidence. Why had the convictions

been satisfactory? Because circumstantial evidence was a
stronger ground of proof than the direct testimony of ocu-
lar witnesses. That testimony, after all, might be fabricated;
1441, but the then arose from the nature of events themselves,
and nsus herefore, be less suspicious anti- more conclu-
sive. 'l:* n individual should be found with-a knife in his
pocket alislikng the 4Vi7e,of the w inflicted on a mur-
dered man, was a cgetrosseaucetofams cion-On,„ and might
occur consistently Wlth pet feet innocence-on his part. If to
that were added the absence of that person front his house
at a suspicious hour of the night, still it would not be stall-
cient. If it appeared that that hour corresponded with the
precise period of the murder, the suspicions would be con-
siderably increased. And if the individual had been traced
very near the place where the atrocious act had been com-
mitted, although each circumstance taken separately would
he insufficient to establish guilt, yet when collected it would
require very little additional proof to lead to a full coo-
viction, So it was in the present instance. It had been ad-
mitted, that this menial servant, with little to recommend
him, bad in a few months beets elevated to the table of the
Princess, had engrossed her entire confidence, and almost
exclusively engaged her society, living apparently in as
much familiarity as would be possible if the most intimate
connection had existed between them. He admitted that if
those filets stood alum, they might he considered highly suspi-
cious; any Noble Peer might say that there had been a great
impropriety, but it would be the extreme of cruelty to aggra-
vate them into positive guilt. It was barely possible, how-
ever, that their Lordships 'night consider that even those fa-
miliarities were sufficient to lead their minds to the conclu-
sion that crime bad beets committed. But when he came to
the pulacca, he found the persons accused sleeping five
weeks under the same tent, in privacy and in darkness;
that tent closed to all others, and those who found
access to it, immediately withdrawing as from a place
forbidden to them.—these circumitances conveyed to his
mind a complete and. conclusive proof of adultery. This
was the precise ground on which the great majority of
cases of that nature had been judicially decided. Coupled
with the total absence of any excuse, and none could have
been set up which would have beets satisfactory to the mind of
any Noble Lord, the fact was decisive. He had not only beets
willing to adroit, he bad pressed on his own mind, the pos-
sibility of raising some doubt or presumption, the benefit of
which the House would be bound to give to the accused. He
had particularly weighed every circumstance, but had found
nothing which could remove the conviction of a cohabitation
having taken place. Suppose their Lordships could persuade
themselves that it might happen without crime, and be did not
lowa' how it could possibly happen that the parties should have
slept under the tent for the whole of that period ; they must
first have ascertained that the person thus admitted was one
to whom the Lady had never shown any partialiity If a per-
son of a higher nature, to whom she had not paid any particu-
lar attention, they might have been glad to lay hold on that
fact. But who was that person ? One proved and admitted to
have been raised by her front the situation of a menial. If it
could have beess shown that this man, though undeservedly
raised, was one towards whom no other impropriety of cola-

duct could be proved, then a doubt might have existed. But
it appeared, that this individual had not only been caprici-
ously elevated to a rank which was not natural to him, and
to an intercourse which no circumstances could justify, lint
that in addition, gross familiarities had been proved to exist
by the concurrent testimony of undoebted witnesses. It, there-
fore, their• Lordships should determine that those circum-
stances did not afford sufficient legal proofs of criminality,
they would at the Same time decide that in all future cases of
this kind, before any tribunal, a criminal intercourse should
only be proved by ocular testimony, a species of proof
which, fur obvious reasons, it was impossible to have in
ninety-nine cases out of every hundred of the most un-
disputed adultery. This was all that he felt himself called
upon to say on this part of the case; what he did not feel
himself necessarily called upon to say, he was most happy to
omit, for it was only with the greatest pain Chat he had at all
approached the subject. With the impression which he had
described on his mind, he should say content on the present
occasion. He would not lose sight of the question of expe-
diency in this case, but the present stage was not the one
for considering it. It appeared to him, that the-second read-
ing of the Bill, whets it was admitted generally that
its preamble was hastily found, was a matter of course,
and ought to follow when their Lordships decided that
the investigation should once go on. The only ques
tiou now was, how far the preamble was sustained,
and when he beard Noble Lords admit that the Queen
was guilty in some measure, he was at a loss to know
how they could make such an admission, and not vote for
the second reading of this 13i11. Would teeir Lordships
. .

leave the case thus unfinished—would they %idler this great
questiou to be heard, but not decided—(Hear !)—Yet he
thought no one in the House ought to give his vote on the
question without judicial proof.—(Hear !)—The second read-
ing did not declare the. principle of the Bill, it was hereafter
in the Committee, that the question of punishment was to
be discussed. It appeared to him, jhat there were two.con-
siderations to be attended te, before their Lordships came to
is final determination. The first' wa4,, what degree of guiit
was proved against the Queen ; the Second, ;what share of, u 7,
niihruent should be visited upon that guilti ' Tb4;sfeojAdmishd-
lug of the Bill only foutid facts which were air eadystsittly ad-
mitted, and as to the share of punishment, it would be pro-
perly a question in the Committee hereafter, whether the pre-
amble might not, in some degree, be altered or modified. At
all events, when Noble Lords admitted the Queen's guilt to a
certain degree, there appeared to him to be no difficulty in
thus judicially passing their verdict upon it, without at all
pledging themselves to what punishment ought to follow. He
himself would vote fur the second leading of the Bill, hut
be reserved an entire sight of considering hereafter, whe-
ther the preamble of it, as it now stood, was to be re•

tained. He would, however, say here, that in his mind, the
claim for dissolving the marriage could not, if the facts were
found, he left out, The question involved considerations of
great moment respecting the propriety of passing t3%8i11, or
the expediency of passing the measure at this time. Tire pre-
sent stage, however, was nut the time to entertain these:
their Lordships could not again discuss the principle of the
Bill, when they had before decided that the inquiry was to
go on. A great deal had been said of the danger attending
the Bill, but he was still to he convinced that the public agi-
tation would he at all lessened by soddenly giving it up. On
theie grounds, then, the Noble Earl said he would give his.
vote for the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of ROSSLYN delivered his sentiments at corms
length against the 13111, and went over Many of the arguments
already repeatedly urged on the same side. He contended,
among other things, that even if ens act of adultery had been
proven, it would not he eriougla to sustain the Bill, which was
founded on charges of a long course of adulterous intercourse.
As a measure of State necessity his Lordship equally objected
to it. It was rejected by the people, who were most concerned
in it in this point of view. By them it was declared to be un-
just, and he conceived that they were an authority to which
all other authorities should bow in this case. But the public
were also judging their Lordships. They looked at all the in-
fluence that might be exerted against the Queen, and on the
other side at the circumstances which were in her favour.
Among these he instanced her coming over to this country
to meet the accusations against her; and her dismissing so
many servants, who, if privy to her misconduct, could bear
witness against it. He next adverted to the consideration
which the people took of the fact of some of their Lordships
being prosecutors as well as jurors, and others almost advo-
cates against the Queen.. An honest, upright, and en-
lightened public formed its judgment on all these points,
and pronounced in favour of her Majesty. His Lordship
then spoke of the inexpediency of the Bill, and
expressed his determination to vote against it, whether
with or without the Divorce Clause. If that Clause
were omitted it would he an insult to the King, for it would
he to say the Queen is infamous. but still she is fit to be
your wife. Aud why was she so ? Because there had been
something in his conduct to her which rendered it impossible
to relieve him from the bond. He contended, in fact, that all
the previous acts of the King and of the State precluded either
as parties in this case from pressing the Divorce Clause. He
also objected to the mode of proceeding, as shutting the ac-
cused out front all pleadings in mitigation of her offence, if
guilty, which she would have enjoyed bad impeachment been
resorted to. Then she might have shown the injustice and
oppression with which she had beets treated, and this would
have had great weight in any judgment to be pronounced.
Would their Lordships permit her collare that privilege now ?
If not, her trial was an unfavourable one. In conclusion, he
prayed them to look at the consequences of having a Queen
in the country, degraded by their sentence, and yet surrounded
by the people, convinced that she was injured. It was alleged
that faction was at work. Would they give it so desperate Us
rallying plaint as Otis would be ? He blasted the majority would
rather join him in saying, Not Content to the Bill.
At the conclusion of Lord Rosslyn's speech, their Lordships
generally exclaimed " Ques.tion, Question, Withdraw !" His
Royal Highness the Duke of Clareoce appeared desirous of
coming to a division, and from the gallery made a motion with
his hand for strangers to quit the Bar.
Lord HOLLAND rose, during the cry of Question, to direct
the attention of the Howe to the proceedings, previous to the