The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

rainsi
'avoid;
Ani

111115 t
es t of

alace

tinhig
d not
y ad-
had
iseeoE,
back

was
o de-

siSh-
e gra"
ffeCtl
ence-
-1 the
s the
beef'
the

rhe
tiliollf
for

have 'any influence on the decision -which they,
e .
no* to 'come to;-on the propriety of pro,.
ceding Avith,,:or... abandoning the. fttrther pro-
!caution of the 'present Bill. They were now
'determine, `supposing the grave; serious and
disgusting* charge 'against the Queen to be
sustaitied by indisputable testimony, whether it
he proper, the facts beino, fully establish-
ed, that- the enactments; 'contained in the Bill
should follow. His Learned Friends had ar-
giied both yesterday and 'to-day, as if it were in
rot' that the Bill was supported by perjured
"liraolV, by suborned witnesses, by spies and
Wormers and this assumption had run through
'the whole of their Addresses. Be must contend
that the' proper time for taking this course had
Tryet Arrived ; and his Learned Friends in,
appealing to the feelings and passions of
"e Douse, were tampering with the, question,
lattempting to mislead their Lord Ships;
dressed
His Learned .Friend who had last ad-
thenc had met hint 'this day with a new
°l)lection. • • He had.• objected- to the preamble of
?1e 13111, and had thought proper to go into the
believed
rrof the manner in which he would have it
elieved that it had been produced, and into
;,4 'history of the 'Secret Committee, and he
had argued that those were wrong who com-
pared the .proceedings of that Committee to
those of a Grand Jury, and he had contend-
td;that another mode' of proCeeding ought to
bare
been preferred, though the Judges had
i'ftterday decided that from the alleged adultery
'a:ing been committed
.with a foreigner, and in
e'oreign land, her Majesty escaped the penalties
S nigh Treason. When it was said that the
ecre
CoMmittee had not acted the part of a
Grand Jury, he would ask if they had preferred.
a
41r1Y- charge against her Majesty ? They had not
eb°4 so. They had merely stated that serious
had'been.preferred against her Majesty,
but did- not take upon themselves to say whether
:•
"Vas guilty or innocent ; and all that they re-
th7mended was, that .the case should be made
Though 6ubject of a solemn legislative inquiry.
(1117. h the Learned Gentleman considered these
proceedings to have originated with the Secret
14,11tnittee, in the very next breath he charged
i",iiinisters with not having founded this Bill on
General)
Report of the Committee. He (the Attorney-
theneraD had however to make this remark, that
au!, had recommended a legislative proceeding,
At
that proceeding must necessarily be by Bill.
A. the propriety of taking this course their Lord-
'Ps had decided,. when they allowed the Bill
0- he read .a first time, and they had only now
t°
decide whether they would go on with the
measure. The Learned Gentleman had spoken of
the
Committee as having made their Report on
illvouched documents. How did he know this •?
es":(the Attorney-General) knew no more on
th'
subjects than his Learned Friend did, but he
-;as • infoTMe.cf it' was not that which he had sup-
,.The *Learned Gentleman had gone
-arough theTreamhle of the Bill, and on this he
that
a most extraordinary complaint, namely,
~ the :matters icharged against her Majesty
here set forth at some length, Instead of being
educed to one shOrt charge.. This was a most
11gular complaint. Had the Learned Gentle-
,
tan forgot, that in ordinary proceedings,',it was ,
set forth
complaint that the offences were not
-for tst'u,at length, and in cases of High Treason,
Provided Uf the accused,. it was specially
• ed that they' should be set forth at length,
and in
I'ver what N;vay they were to be proved. Was
corm,"le.l.ore'a person' accused of a crime known to
ImA that he was brought to trial not onlyknow-
rith what he was chargedt but also the man-
`n Which it was to be proved. Far from being
wneclirenience; he would contend that that which
hi complained *of,' was an advantage to her
uehle.stY. Ile was surprised' at the laboured argu-
Irs,;raised on the term "adulterous intercourse,"
1311,,,,i° the Bill instead of 44 adultery." In most
cc Bills the adultery was described as an
port illicit intercourse," or words of a similar im-
as 4.and the words found in the present Bill were
ter.'" used in Divorce Bills to express the adul-
th4 ,_as any other. His Learned Friend had
pos:gn,t fit to throw in some humour, for the pur-
tiot' 61 enlivening the audience, and he had argued
hthe intercourse of her Majesty with Bergami
aRg t be regarded as indecent by one man, and
ver not being indecent, by another. It would be
jusicwell to argue this, if the evidence would
u1t,,,h1 When the' facts had been proved, it
stal ` be fairly urged ; but in the present In-
itisce) he could only view it as an ' attempt. to
ihe lead the House, and divert.the attention from
ag ttr.eal question before the House, which was
sent ~,the propriety of going on with the pre-
lie would call their attention to any
trill °C Pains' and Penalties, that the House
,litsee if the charge was not put in the same.
he i (If way as the present Bill. Here he read
forthat!gultge in' which the charge had been set
qt.° In: Atterbury'S case, which expressed the
-Rgest horror of the 'offence, and thence
;r:s4fh.ei.'red that the'cOMplaint made against the
,
grokZ, 'on that account was idle and
welltTess• The 'Bill now before 'the House
"t Ai° make Parliament express " a deep 'sense
'
dutt, Scandalens, 'dist?ousling,: and, vicious con-
•
14trorthy•of her rank," which was imputed
i"ecidepiesty• It would be' for the House to
P.°4l the evidence, whether her conduct.
(%aet tied such a description, and whether the
It 1,
brit contained in
-•.,a b
shuieen said; that the' Charge, was- founded
,•• the dens and perjuries, and not vn the opiniop
den( before
that had 'reported on the evi-
-110 "fore them.' 'The'COniinittee .had- given
"I°4 on the • remained
House to
evidence, it ' for :t:he
nPou ° do thaf. Had_ the COmmittee 'taken
'eseive to decide its it
. s on iher s, then,.
gne ' it' might have been complained that the
4""• had
N 4,1 been unfairly ll'rejtidged. Till the
4.11 evictiei,liad been beard,' Vira's impOssible for-
side to be safelylOrmied.• either 'on one
n301,,Z1 91e other: His Learned Friend` had
tiPn4 trade
an air of,ridicule`Of the communica-
41ade toue to her Majesty,, and Qf; she efforts
distressieStytis
ng *IAOI- reply;

that then it was an object to prevent this evi-
dence , from being seen, and 'it was not
under such circumstances, and at- that times
for :those engaged in the correspondence,
which had . been alluded to, to assume
that .the Adultery had-been.proved. When the
Adultery had been proved by the evidence, such
an observation as had been made might not be.
ill-timed, but at present it was too muchto argue
that those in communication with her Majesty
were to -act on the assumption that the charge
preferred against her Majesty had been proved.
It had been unfairly assumed, that an impeach-
ment could, be maintained. Had that courSebeen
preferred, notwithstanding all that was now said,
he had no doubt that they should at once have
been told that 'that was not the way in which the
House ought to proceed. In the same manner it
would have been argued that they could not pu-,
Dish the Queen fior High Treason, because the
act charged against her had been committed iu
a foreign land. Had they thought of pursuing a
line .of conduct different from that which they
had taken, they Would have been stopped at the
outset ; and though the Queen was now most he-
roically ready to meet an impeachment, had that
been preferred, they would have been met with
threats and objections of tenfold force. Then
they Would have been told, " 0 you should not
have proceeded b.y Impeachment; you might
better have effected your purpose by Bill.
Then, too, her Majesty could have been allowed
to recriminate, but now, alas! we are denied the
right of recrimination." Had Ministers thought
fit to proceed by an Impeachment, his Learned
Friends well knew that no recrimination
_Could

have been alloWed. Had, it ever been beard, •
that in a case of High. Treason a person .should
say, " I am guilty, but I can chew that the cot).
duct of others. has been as bad, and. therefore
ought not to be punished." Now co the Bill,
with that inconsistency which belonged to the
arguments of his Learned Friends, they con-
tended for the right of recrimination as most im-
portant to her Majesty, and yet complained that
she had not been proceeded against by Impeach-
ment, which would have taken that right away.
He believed that there was no instance in the
case of a
.Bill of Pains and Penalties, in which
the Counsel for the accused had been allowed to
argue against the principle of the Bill in this.
stage of the proceedings. His-Learned Friends
thus indulged, and professing to argue as if the
charges had been proved, had arraigned the
witnesses before they were heard, and attacked
the evidence before it had been disclosed to
their Lordships, and reasoning on it accord-
ingly, called upon the House not to go into it.
He called on the House not to be led astray by
his Learned Friends, but to reserve their opinion
on the evidence till it was produced. Let them
wait till they could see whether it was tainted and
corrupt, He thought the indulgence with which
his Learned Friends had been favoured had been
somewhat abused by the limeades, insinua-
tions, and attacks which had been thrown out
and made on various parties in the course of"
their speeches. Their assertions (he meant
no disrespect to them) were entitled to no
attention when they comprehended such sweep-
ing personalities as those to which he had
alluded, maintained- as they were by any
thing hut assertion. The principal protest
Atterbury's case had, as it appeared to
him, been most unfortunately referred to by his
Learned Friends. It was in that cOmplained
that a Bill of Pains and Penalties subjected
the accused 'to two tribunals instead of one.
The mischief then remarked. upon was this,
that the House of Commons were enabled to
sit as Judges in the case ; and it was urged that
the House of Commons- would never bring up
impeachments to the House of Lords, if proceed-
ing by a Bill of Pains and Penalties they could
sit as Judges themselves with equal power. He
did not apprehend that the Queen and her
friends would on this occasion complain of this—
that they would object to the other House (in
which popular feelings were more likely to pre:-
vail than in their Lordships' House), taking a
part in the present proceedings. lie had not
expected when his Learned Friend alluded to
Atterbury's case that he , would refer to the
protest, which proceeded altogether on the
assumption that their Lordships would act in
the same way, professing to act legislatively
as if they sat judicially. Their Lordships
had had the opinion' of the Judges, who
had decided that the case was one that
could not be proceeded against in a Criminal
Court. He (the Attorney-General),.. if the
Queen had been guilty of High Treason, could
not have. stood at their Lordships' Bar to ad-
vise that they should proceed in this way if a
judicial' course- of proceeding had been open to
them, and he had referred to. Atterbury's case for
the purpose of sliewing the danger of doing se.
'The present he considered to be the only safe
~mode 'of proceeding. If he (the Attorney-Ge-
neral) were now to` enlarge on the enormity of
the crime- alleged to have been committed by the
Queen, at that time but Princess of Wales, Mit next
in rank to what she was now, he should' be com-
plained of as doing that which ought not to be done
at-this moment. His conduct would be arraigned'
if he were even to allude to the evidence' by
which the Bill was to 'be sustained, and which,
God knew, would be disclosed soon enough. Such
conduct would be considered an atteMpt to pre-
judge the question, but his Hon.: and Learned
Friend could attack by insinuation and- inuendo'
`whom
he pleased. No individual was too high
:for him to attack, and he did.not scruple to revive
the charges formerly brought against an illus-
'triens individual, in spite of the great benefits
:which the country had derived from his talents and
'his services. Those subjects were again to be
brought forward, wbiCh it would have been
well neirer.lO have agitated, and this was to be
,done in the agonizing moment when the re-
mains of One most near to him had but just
-been conaigued to the grave.. This could be
done by her Majesty's Counsel ; but-he must not
imitate such conduct ; and till the proper-time
aiiived for speali.ing. on the evidence: he should

carefully abstain. from inflicting any unneces-
sary wound on the feelings, of the Queen. He
would rather submit to all the disadvantageS
of his situation. Alan act such a part ; but he felt
it right to call on their Lordships, and fie kneW:
that he should not call in vain, to dismiss from
their minds the appeals whiCh had been made to:
their feelings, to reserve their opinions, and go
on with temper ; and doinc, this, he should con-
tentedly submit to their decision, whaterur 'that
decision might be. Out of all the arguments that.
had been adduced on the other side, there was
not one which had any application. to the, ques-:
tion. One Learned Gentleman, on the other
side, Mr. Brougham, adverted to the old objec-
tions against the Bill, on the, score of its involving
an ex post filet° law : this he could not deny.
But . he would ask, if. an offence of the highest
magnitude, one which had been marked by -our
ancestors as the highest that could be committed
against the State, was to be allowed to pass un-
punished ? Her Majesty had been Charged with
having been guilty of this offence whilst Princess'
of Wales: It was well known, that if it had been
'committed in this country it would amount to an
offence equivalent to High Treason, and be subject
to the punishment of death. But, because it had
happened out of the country, and with a person
who owed no'allegiance to the Sovereign of these
Realms, and did not incur the penalty of the law,
was it therefore of so light a nature as to call for
no interference on the part of the Legislature ?
The charge in the preamble of the Bill was, that
the Queen of this Kingdom had heaped favour
and fortune on a menial of low birth, in her ser-
vice, and had carried on an adulterous inter-
course with him, and pursued conduct of a most
indecent, licentious, and disgraceful nature ? Was
this, he. asked, no offence—not to be looked to
by their Lordships? Was it, becauSe of• its hav-
ing bees committed in 'ltaly or elsewhere, on
that account -to pass altogether unnoticed'? Was
that which, according to the law of this coun-
try, would 'affect the honour, the fortune, and
the life of the individual guilty of it,' because it ,
was contracted under the.circurnstances he had •
mentioned, not to be visited with any punish-
meta ? and.-.were they to be told that because it
was not an offence when committed, it was not
to be treated as such afterwards? As to the
objection of 'the' measure being au ex post facto.
law, the same would apply to every Divorce
Bill that was brought into that Honse, which was
to all Intents and purposes an ex post facto. law.:
—The marriage ties were contracted as indis-
soluble—the husband has Cause of coMplaint, and
comes to .that House, for what ? Why, to ask
them pass an ex post facto law; one :which,
though it was not in the precise form- of a Bill of
Pains and Penalties, was distinctly one in its
operations against the wife. A Divorce Bill was
a retrospective law ; and another resemblance it
bore to a Bill of Pains and Pesalties was, that if
the Bill was against a Peeress, the consequence
of its being passed was a degradation from her
rank and titles. Their Lordships were not about
to pass an ex post facto law, by making that High
Treason Which was so before.' .I.tut although:they
Were nit going to do that, they- did not mean to
let it pass unnoticed. He trusted he had given
a satisfactory answer to all which. her Majesty';
Attorney-General had advanced on; this point.
'The next argument was, - that. this proceeding
should rather have been instituted by the mode
of impeachment. 'But what 'authority or piece.
dents could' be urged in favour of such a.proce.
dure ? lie was" aware that there were some Per.
sons entitled to. great respect, .who carried the
doctrine of impeachinent _too far. There were
persons who were of opinion that inipeachment
might be substituted in all cases which were
not amenable to the laws. Of all the cases to
be found bearing a reference to this: point,
the impeachment of Lord Somers was the only
one on which a doubt could be entertained.
And there it would be seen, that he was
charged with the commission of an act contrary
to 'his duty in the situation in which he stood
towards the Crown, for affixing-his .official :seal
with a Foreign Power. He (the Attorney Ge-
neral) was of opinion, that a 'public functionary
was amenable to the laws for dereliction, or a
false direction, of his duties, which in his opinion
was tantamount to a crime. The opinion of Mr.
Justice Blackstone on the Law of Impeachment
was, 44 that an impeachment.before Parliament is:
a prosecution on the principles of the known and
common law of the land, differing from Bills of
Pains and Penalties, inasmuch as these latter are
now laws to meet the- case." He therefore un-'
derStood that enlightened lawyer to be-of opi-
nion that impeachment would . not stand where
the offence was not known to the law. And
as his Learned Friends declared that this offence
was not known to the law, their own conces-
sion was 'against•the argument: -If their Lord.
ships would look to the cases 'Of impeachment,
they
only-one whieir could refer ; but even then, not
would find .that that of Lard Somers wits the
runless the' case could be pushed to the extreme,'
that a 'Minister can be punished for an error of
judgment. "After the variety of topics touched
on'by his Learned Friends, they entered at great
.length into the expediency of th,emeasure,urging
every thing that could be deemed likely to in-
.flUCIlCe their Lordships' minds. To this he would
'only reply, that expediency was not the question
'which they were called to the bar to discuss.
The only question which they Were permitted to
entertain,' it appeared to- him was, whether 'their
Lordships should go• on with the Bill, or abaft..
done it, in order that the matter might be tried
at some other, bar. Her Majesty called fotexa-
mination ; the inquiry, therefore., was the only
matter for hesitation, and net' ire expediency.
Their Lordships had settled that, when they
permitted the Bill to be brought in. '.Chore was
another extraordinary argument' used on this oc.
casion, which was, that they ' could. not visit on
the Queen ,an offence committed whilst she was
Princess of Wales. The case, however, was pre-
cisely the same in both instances, as the Princess
of Wales would be equally- subject to the al.
:leged Offence; if committed in this conntry,.,with
(;)twcoying allegiance,. to. the Monarchy of these

"Reahns. Oli that topic, therefore, there was not
the least foundation for the objection urged. The
Queen was in no worse a situation now, than if
the Bill was brought against her as Princess of
Wales. She 'was deprived of no advantages now
which she would have had as such,, and therefore.

the proceedings were precisely the same. This
13111 waiintroduced as a measure against a sdt-,
ject of the Crown, and as an affair of State,
although it was contended that it was dic-
tated by the private feelings of one, who, were
it not a matter of State, would be the only party
interested. What, if our ancestors had thought
the crime of adultery worthy of death, were their.

Lordships to confine themselves in their. Punish;
meat of it to those cases only where a succession-
was tainted ? Did our ancestors guard agairmt
that in the statute of Edward' ? If is Learn-
ed Friend (Mr. Brougham) had told them • that
they could not pass the, Bill before the House
without the act of adultery was.distinctly proved.
He was willing to grant him. that. The divorce
would, not follow without the adultery proved
but the Bill,assumed that the adultery :had -been.
committed. The first question for their Lord-
ships would be -whether the whole or part of
the preamble had been proved. If the whole
were not proved, it was not for, him- nor
his Learned Friend to trouble themselves
about what would , be their Lordships' enact-
meats in that case. - The only. argument of

importance was on the subject of impeachment.
He had proved that impeachment could not lie
in this case, and therefore there was. no other
course to be pursued than the present one ; and
even if there were, it would still be a question
whether this were not as good. In going
.over
the topics which had, been introduced into the
speeches of the Learned Counsel on the other
side, he might have omitted many. Those in-
flammatory ones, he was sure he had not touched
on, and that nothing should tempt him to follow
the example set him with respect to then*; he
was addressing a great assembly, and these ad-
diesses to their passions, ho never they might
please for the moment, and dead thein to admire
the Advocate at the Bar, he was sure would not
weigh one tittle when they came dispassionately
to the consideration of the qnestion involved in

- - -
them. It was in truth a tremendous inquiry, and
he knew what attempts to give it a bias would
be made by the means of, popular clamour.
He was confident, however, that :such unworthy
means would have no effect , Qu their Lordships,
who would go on uith a firm and steady pace to
the end in view, and in spite of all the vile at-
tempts made to delude them. He had such con-
fidence in the manliness and good sense of the
people of this country, that when the fact's were
once before them, there would be nothing-to fear.
If innocent, the party would have nothing to
fear from their Lordships ; if guilty, he was "sure
no menaces would ever induce them to swerve one

tittle from what justice demanded: With: their
hands upon their hearts, they would attend. to
the evidence before them, which. if clear their
decision would satisfy that so
the publ. -loin; as
the meanest,was protected for her innocence— the
highest subjeCt in the kingdom could not offend
••
with impunity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERNL then, rose to address their
Lordships. His duty, he observed, called upon him to trouble
them on this subject, which had been property 'characterised
by all whohad preceded him, as most important andmo-
mentous. He'confessed that' ho partook of the feeling of the
Atiornev-General as to the line of conduct pursued-by the
Learned Counsel on the other side, in introdueing.ttOpies al-
together unconnected with the question. He (the Solicitor-
General) understood they came there for the purpose of
calmly and temperately discussing a great legal question.
The question was proposed to the House by the Counsel of
her Majesty, and those persons associated with them, and the
AttornO-General and, himself. But his Learnecl•Frientla on
.the other side had most widely desiated from the coorsmite-
scribed to them ;- descending to the use of personal insect ice,
charging the persons who brought the charge with the most;
,corrupt perjury, and those who were to appear before them
as witnesses, with having lent themselves to subotnatiori, and
employed the intik disgraceful means to make out a case
against au Illustrious Indiiidual. They had placed them-
selves out 'of the situation'of defendants, and assumed that-of
accusers. For his own part, he would say that;all•their
charges and imputations Were utterly devoid of foundation,
and be challenged theM to the proof of them when they came
to the investigation. 'He had said that the question under
consideration was, under every point of view, most sitOple.
By the law of the laud as it at present stood, the Queen Con-
sort of these realms corn-milting adultery with any one-olving
allegiance to the Monara of the realms, was guilty of High
Treason. This was Itte.acknowledged law of the land: but
by a nice refilled technical distinction,' which had given occa-
sion for much doubt and debate ainoug the Judges, it turned'
out, that, however scandalous the case might be, if it teas not
committed with a prison owing allegiance to the Sovereign,
it WAS not.cognizahle by the law of the land; But stas it to
ba said, that a person so condticting herself, fur, it was im-
possible to conduct the argument on any other principle
than that all the, facts charged against the Queen• would
be proved, ~(it must he assumed that all the facts ionld
be made out to the satisfaction of the House ;) was it
then to be said that the Qneen Consort of these colitis
could he guilty ,of
,an 'offence so nearly verging sin the
. highest crime known to the caw, so contrary to religion,
and so derogatory from the high dignity of her situatiat, that'
such a person should sit upon fhe Throtre, holding out au
example so universal and so pernicious? Was there no put
nishment, no penalty for-such a transgression ? On thd one
hand, it, was said this be,ing no offence against the laws; -was'
no crime, and therefore no penalty. On' the other, 'it was
said that it. should not he treated by a Bill of Pains and Penal-
ties, but rattier by impeachment.' He thought it was irupos-
sible that any hotly of reasonable men, or of Gentlemen;' and
much Jess a tribunal like that he was then addressing, t oulcU
say that, a person so conducting herself should' enjoy the
station of Queen.cons'ort of these realms ! There Were only
two ways of. proceeding. The one was by bill, as in the pre-
seat tase i the othei by impeachMent. In the mode aduipted
in this instance, what was the nature of the Bill ? It charged
in the preamble, an (*nee committed with a foreigner abroad.
therefore not, cognizable by the law. What the• Bill enacted
was a disseintion of the marriage, and degradation. Was it
more than what oitglit to fhtloW, if the charges should be
proved, that she should he deprived of her rank, station, and
dignity? or, was it not a necessary consequence that her
marriage with She King should be broken? Was the King to
be denied what the meanest suliect could obtain? 'A Bill of
Pains and Penalties might be a Bill for a dissoldticin of
marriage and degradation • but did not every Session' see
same, of the sae, kind ? 'The argument of his Learned •
Friend the Attorney-General was clear on that paint.—
The Lear.ned Gentlemen, however, on the other side,‘'with
a displar.of talents he had rarely seen equalled, and never
exceeded, head labonred to strew that this was altogether a
new Proceeding. They admitted that it was not a Bill of
Divorce, butt an Cr po4l facto law. That admission dis-
penseul with the necessity.pf his answering that part of the '
argument ; whilst, it called on theist to Make out a 'strong
•case or
prepare
necessitys a
yt,,o
tjhuastt iifty
IN!
ahse pa
ari.snet
sanseu(rt rn
al:
ye
was
cases before that Tribunal. But even if it was not, walthera
ever an occasion better justifying such a measure? Wog it
be tolerated that conduct of such a nature as be' had al.
hunted to, should be allowed to rass? Was it to be tolerated
that such an individual, of such qualifications, should 'l2,,suf-
fered to remain iii this country, off,ering so exalted an'exam-
pie of licentinuaniss? Hi agreed with the teamed Vedsnset
that if all this could have been possibly avoided—it the Qtieen,
listening to other counsels,' could have been induced-iot to
, . . **" •

' '

n:: vf.