The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-02 00:00:00

THE BILL.

The.Larat CH AN CELL() n now 'rose, liaving left
the Woolsack, andobserved that the only.::ques-
tion now to be considered by their-Lordships teas,
whether. the present Bill, denominated a Bill of
Pains and Penalties, should or. should snot be read
a second tirne. In the -ordinary course Of pro-
ceeding in cases of this kind, Sounded on di-
vorce, it was customary for, their 'Lordships
to hear proofs adduced in support of
.the
allegations of the Bill ; after which he retired
from the Table to the Woolsack, and intimated
his opinion of the evidence to the House, when it
was competent for Noble Lords, if they chose, to
differ from him, but not till the question had
.heen.put 'respecting the second reading f the
Bill. Though the preamble of such a_ Bill
was usually postponak, yet when
.the question
for postponing the preamble was put, it was corn-
potent for the House either to amend or alter it.
If indeed-the House should deern'it expedient so
to do, they might introduce a now Bill in the pre-
sent stage; but this was never done• except
for the purpose of mitigating the penalties
Of the "original Bill. On this occasion
he could assure the House, with the utmost
sincerity, that he was distressed far be-
yond what he could express, and that he never
would have addressed their Lordships on this
painful subject, if he could have retired from the
discussion of the Bill consistently with the sense
of that duty which he owed to the House.
There were many considerations :which would

have induced him not to come near the pre-
sent Bill, diStressed as he felt, beyond all past
occasions ; but,, whatever might be the conse-
quences, he was compelled' to make up his
mind to the discharge of a duty from which in
conscience it was impossible for him to shrink'
In stating this he would admit that no man Ought
to support the second reading of the Bill unless
the Preamble of it were substantiated to the sa-
tisfaction of his own mind ; and if he was not
Convinced that an' adulterous intercourse had
taken place, no Noble Lord could fairly vote for
the second reading. Some mistake had gone
abroad as to the part allotted to him in this pain-
Stu case ;. it was not his duty to sum up, but to
state his opinion to the House, and the reasons
on which that opinion had been founded. They
were all assembled there as Jurors to discuss the
,subject, and assist each other in. forming a judg-
ment of it. -Much had also been stated with re-
- sp_ect to the proceeding by a "Bill of Pains
and Penalties, and it was said that such a mea-
sure should not pass, unless the state of the
Country called for it. Their Lordshipi had now
to look hiCk no farther than 'the Resolution of
1688, when they would find, that such an enact-.
!bent had then taken place without any neces—
sity "being made out. In regard to the pre-,
sent unfortunate case, he had stated before, and
would now repeat it, that a Bill of Pains 4MI
r'enalties,Was a more favourable course towards:
the. party ,accused, than proceeding by impeach.:
Merit, as proceedings .by impeachment Were`
. .
id.the first instance ex,parie:; and in this instance
a single vote-in. the Lowerllouse, where the Ina-
peachment must go, was sufficient to decide at once
whether., there should be an Impeachment or not.
In this House; their Lordships were guided by the
rules .of evidence, and liable to be corrected,
while in. the Lower House there,
.was only one
opportunity of deciding the case, and, if it should
err in their opinior4 there was no remedy for the
mistake they had committed. But in this case
the circumstance must go through both Houses of
the Legislature, and be discussed in each, so that
the error of to-day might be discussed by the wis-.
dorn of tomorrow, and the mistake of to-morrow
be.remedied by the-wisdom of the following day.
Another of the objections to the present -Bill,
was, that their Lordships would be submitting

their judgment to that of the. House of commons.
He would certainly own that this was partly the
fact, but did not this happen in a number of Bills,
particularly in those that were applicable to
. , .
Divorce ?" la regard: to Impeachment, one of
the mischiefs of this proceeding was, that it
might involve the Lower-House in a contradiction
with. the 'Upper. Passing by these points, it
was complained that no specific charge had. ori-
ginally heed made., out, and that a List of Wit-
nesses had not been furnished. In what way
could charges be so well specified as by the -in-
quiry that had been gone into ; and how cotrid a
List of Evidencesbave been furnished so well, as
by producing them at their Lordship? Bar, especi-
ally whefi'lime was granted lo go on with the de-
fence? Yet if their Lordship's had preserved that
most valuable part of their Constitution in mind,
without which justice was of no value, if they
were bound by4hatgreaffinciple of British Jus-
tice, that accusation was-119s proof of guilt, and
whether 'they were proceeding by a Bill of
Pains and Penalties,-or-by impeachment, that it
was their bounden 'duty, to hold the accused
innocent till they came at their decision, then
her Majesty had nothing to fear from those 'sill-
ficulties which: she 'might have appeared to have
struggled with. Their Lordships, he trusted,
would also lookat the difficulties 'of procuring the
evidences in this unfortunate case ; and if-:they
found there was much More facility in getting the
witnesses for the Bill than againSt it, this con-
sideration would operate in favour of the Ac-
cased, who ought to reap the advantage of it.
Taking, too, the account of the corrupt means
alleged to have been used in regard to Itastelli,
or any other witness, or if this circumstance led
to suspicion in any other way, of this also the
accused would have the advantage in the judgment
of theifLordships'Honse. All these circumstances
should be taken in favour of the accused side. But
laying 'aside all that part whith could be sus-
.petted, and taking the unsuspicious testimony in
support of the Bill, did the evidence in answer
to the Bill deny the evidence on which it was
founded ? Did, in fact, the unimpeached testi-
mony, taken all together, fairly support the alle-
gation of an adulterOus intercourse, or did it not ?
The course to be taken, 'he imagined to be this,,
if their Lordships discovered that one or two
cases were well proved, and if they looked at
circumstances that had also been proved by those
whose testimony wasabove all suspicion,and if they
coupled those cases and circumstances so proved
With the relative situation of the 'parties, his opinion
was, and he was distressed, and sorry to pronounce
ft,—that from the evidences on the Table of the
Ilcease, he could not draw any other conclusion than
that there had been au adulterous intercourse.
(Deep cries of " Hear, hear! ")-7-Contradictions
were mentioned too triumphantly in the ordinary
mode of summing up ; more weight had , been
given, in his. opinion, 'by Judges to the cir-
cumstance that no contradiction was offered to
the evidence .than- in reason ought. Many cir-
cumstances there certainly were - in which it
must not be inferred that certain things never
had been done,-because they could not be proved
to have - taken- place. Contradiction was often
most difficult where no others than the parties
were present at the time who were implicated ;
who could contradict what took place between
them ? but on the other 'hand, in cases Where
there were many persons present at the scene,
and it was possible to get at,contradiction to al-
leged facts, it then became of very great iinport-
ance to remark, that no contradiction was found ;
and an evidence was entitled to credit, by the tacit
admission of the Accused, who thereby was sup-
,.
posed.to ackuow.Wfge the charge. The Noble and
Learned Lord applied the foregoing remark to.
what passed on board the Polacca by ob-
srving, that when there were So many persons
on board, not oaly dill .not one passenger swear
to the absence of 'Bergturrifrom. the deck during-
the night, hut thatesen the witnesses who had
been called in behalf of her Majesty, had with
great reluctance beenlob liged to admit that Bergarni
bad slept under I,he tent for the period of five
weeks. Majocciand Dumont were stated to be
perjured; though there 'Were some /ontradictions
in their evidence, it did not follc4 that there was
no truth in it:; but without these witnesses,, the
case was sufficiently made out.--L(Here we left
his Lordship speaking.)

THE WITNESS RASTELLI.—We are assured
that this person, in'company with two other Ita-
lians, arrived at the Foreign Office about nine
o'clock in the evening of yesterday se'nnight ;
that he came over in care of Mr. DYKES, the
King's Messenger; and that he is in such a bad
slate of health' as to be under" the necessity of
travelling the whole idiitance on a carriage bed.—
(Morning Herald.)

HER MAJESTY, we are assured, has signified
her intention to withdraw wholly from this coun-
try, whatever may be the final issue of the pend-
ing Trial..

.It is confidently rumoured that many of the
Peers have expressed an intention to enter this
day into the merits of the question as to the im-
tilted gUilt of THE QUEEN, and to comment
freely, not only on the evidence of the Witnesses,
but on the arguments and conduct of her Coun-
sel. It must, indeed: be acknowledged that the
Conduct of the Counsel' for TuE QUEEN, according
to the opinion of the Noble Writer who favoure d
us with the REMARKS ON HER MAJ ESTY'S DEFENCE,
the conclusion of which we yesterday inserted, has
been grossly exceptionable. To use the words
of that Noblct Writer, 44 the dignity of the House
of Lords, every rule observed on like occasions,
and' the Court itself, have been sacrificed to the
unprecedented and unreasonable clainis of HER
MAJ ESTY'S Counsel. It (the House) has submitted
to most insulting dictation and interruptions, and
has borne with a conduct, on the part of her Coun-
sel, that never was before, and never should have
been, suffered by the House." The People, in
general, who are, thank Heaven, to be discrimi-
nated from the mass of senseless, credulous, and
interested Addressers, who have insulted common
sense, trampled upon decency, scoffed at inquiry,
and held in contempt the proceedings of Law
and Justice, doubtless read the presumptuous
and arrogant conduct of her MAJESTY'S AdVO-
cates with proper indignation, and will, we are
persuaded, feel gratified in finding that any of
the Members of the august Tribunal come for-
ward to repel such daring outrages on one of the
essential branches of our unrivalled Constitution.