Star.
London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

i

• .

\ ~t. .

. -

!a-nth; it musk Ni me one of the forms which I have
described. At rate, it must not retain that in
which it is at present moulded. My Lords, I do not
like the introducion of levity on a subject of this
grave stature; but I declare, that when I first heard
this Bill read I thought myself in a Theatre, and
fancied that the various parts were got up by differ-
ent performers. -One seemed to me to say, • Her
Majesty engaged in her service a foreigner of low
station ; another, • A most unbecoming and degra-
ding intimacy commenced between her Royal High-
ness and Bartolomo Bergand ;' a third, Her Royal
• highness placed him in high and confidential situa-
tions about her Royal highness's person ; a fourth,
Het-Royal fliglintss conducted herself in a man-
ner that proved she was wholly unmindful of her
'exalted rank and station ; and then came Mts. Can-
-dour, implying, in the phrase,' and in other respects,'
a something-which even her kindness could not ex-
tenuate. Really, my Lords, it appears to me that
we are acting the School for Scandal, and that this
solemn inquiry in which we are engaged, is nothing
more than a solemn farce. It appears to me that
there leis been a kind of Malroli9, expelled from his
stew ardhip by the combination of, the servants, with
whom he has quarrelled, and who have determined
to wreak their vengeance on him,- although the most
rerson in their mistress s household.
'What we complain of, my Lords, is the absence of
slistinct and definite charge, and the multiplication
ele',rcunistitriees, from which an inference is intended
to be drawn; but against which no defence can be
runic. \\hat we complain of, my Lords, is, that a
motive is held out to your Lordships fisr passing this
wbich would be inolierative it) a Court of Jus-
t/se or on an Impeachment. In a Court of Justice
a Jury would be sworn to determine whether the
distinct fact alleged had been actually committed or
not. In the case of an Impeachment distinct articles
have been exhibited, and every one of your
ineclships would have been severally called on to
declare, upon-his personal honour, whether or not he
believed that the specific charges were true? But,
try Lords, under the present circumstances it is dif-
beak—oat-, it is impossible to say on. what principle
your Leidships will individually be guided in yeur
decision. Some Noble Lords, mho may be satisfied
that no adulterous intoecurse' has taken place, may
nevertheless entertain such high opinions with respect
to familiarity,' as to be induced to convict her Ma-
. jetty,- and to think it therefore necessary to pass this
Bill. My Lords, I know that all the noble persons
present who are lawyers will declare, We must
have the adultery distinctly and unequivocally
proved. But there may be other Noble Lords who
may be of opinion that a strong surmise will be suf-
ficient. What security, therenne' can I possess of a
just and legal decision? The Law Lords, from
their professioual habits, I may be sure of; but how
can I tell on what. other Noble Lords may be pleased
to found their verdict? In an action for criminal
conversation, tried in a t'rintinal Court, the Judge
would air, • I must have the fact of the adultery
distinctly proved,'andi it were not distinctly proved
he nould direct the Jury to acquit the defendant.—
But the question is, how we, her Majesty's Counsel,
are so to gage and measure sour Lordships opinions
*as to be able to do array with the stations impressions
which this ilia is calculated to make on your Lord-
ships minds? Some of the allegations in this Bill
may. appear to your Lordships to be true. Time may
have boat frequent familiaxities,' as they ate called.
There may have tws frequent sittings at table Loge-
then, Thor may have beeufrequent appearances of
intimacy dining the continuance of mutual hardships
and difficulties, which, under other circumstances
would be improper. But hew ate we to know what
evidence on such. subjects will be satisfactory to all
vain- Lordships? *SCII:C of your Lordhips may be
di Booed to convict our Illusuious Client, on the
grotsnif of 4 unbecoming and degrading intimacy
others on Ler having advanted the individual impli-
eJted with her to a high situation in her Royal
I lighinst'a them/told: others on her having con-
trried UpOU him a pretended Older of knighthood
others on her having' received into her service many
of his nesir ];very Noble Lord may dis-
cover sonic particular basis on which to justify his.
vete; and no two Peers may pronounce on the same
pound. There may even be some of your Lordships
tempted by views of expediency alone to pass the
measure,. We all know that when great interosts•
clash—when the highest characters of the realm are
opposed to one another, this language ujll be held—
this lauguage has been held—that as oae of the pare
ties must be displaced, right or wrong, the one less
important to the general weal trust give way. One
cf the public prints gas even dared to say, that if
your Lordships do not feel justified in treating her
nlajesty as a criviiital, the public interest requires
that she should be made a ;nadir ! Fat am 1, my
lords, from insinuating that such an argument cab-
Live any weight on your Lordship' minds; but the
docuir.e has been avowed, and we can therefore have
tau security wish respect to the extent of its influence.
11 1 am asked, -what course of proceeding would be
preferable to the present? I reply, that it is in the
s-ower of the House of Commons to call on your
i ordships,- by an Impeachment, to enter uponan in-
quiry into this subject. Certainly a Grand Jury could
not investigate the nature of any acts alleged to have
been committed at Milan. But your Lordships are
net-piectuded from such an investigation. An Im-
peachment would be a trial. A Bill of Pains and
.Peualties is. no trial. It is calculated to defame the
accused. It is calculated to excite suspicicn against
yew- Lordship—.unjust, I allow, but certainly not
unnatural;—sitspicion, which, if the present pro-
ceeding be persevered in, the Public will think they
have a right to entertain. My Lords, in the most
soleunt stautier I disclaim any, the slightest imputa-
tion, ea this high tribunal. I revue it front the
depth of my bent If on any vermin'', it should hap.
raw appear to be influenced by a sinister motive, I
avouhl rather submit to that inconvenience than cast
_ny odium Off. its general administration of justice.
but it the public see the legislature of the country, on
a great and important occasion, depart horn the prin-
; plea uf justice, and volunteer the support of charges,
Inch as those which this Bill exhibits, this time uill
male v‘ hen it will be difficult for the warmest advo-
cates of our Constitution to justify youl. Lordships
cioduct. I will not repeat the remarks oilezed to your
airdships y es unit ay on this Bi 11 by my Learned Friend.
Le peucectfing as my Learned Irieud justly ob-

- • :
served, a 'proceeding in which-the accusers, the Jury,'
and the Legislature, are combined in one. In refer-
ence to the
.tneasuie of former times, to which my
Learned Friehd alluded (and against which so able a
Protest is entered on your Lordships' Journals), I
will say,. iliif Ishauld consider' the honour of the
Peerage dearly bought, were it to be on the condi-
tion Of *finding my ancestor's name in the majority
by which that measure. was carried. Let your Lord-
ships consider the evil consequences with reference to
your own dignity, which must be •the result of per-
severing in a departure from the principle which 1
am advocating. bra judicial proceeding this House
ought alone to pronounce. What will be the conse-
quence of your Lordships sharing your high func-
tions with others? Your Lordships examine evi-
dence on oath, and you pronounce your opinions
upon your honour. If, after passing sentence on her
Majesty, by acquiescing in the present Bill, you send
it down to the lower House, it will there be exposed
to all the indignity of popular clamour. In that
House witnesses are not examined on oath, and yet
they may be subjected to all the scrutiny to which
658 Gentlemen, of various habits and tempers, may
choose to expose them. I have cettainly no incli-
nation to disparage that House of Parliament; but
I cannot forget that it has beeir said by one of their
most diainguished Members, that they never en-
tered into any inquiry but they disgraced themselves.
Instead of expressing their own unbiassed judgment,
every petty Corporation will be entitled to instruct
its Iteoresentatives on the subject of this Bill. But,
my Lords, there is yet a third estate. The King
must become party to this proceeding.; the King
and the House of Commons will share with your
Lordships that which has hitherto been considered
the brightest and most valuable of your privileges.
The King, in all cases a formidable auxiliary to a'
cause which he espouses, must, in the present in-
stance, be an overpowering one. Let us examine,
my Lords, the part which the King - has hitherto
taken in this affair. Has the King complained, or
has he held his peace? If his Majesty has held his
peace, will your Lordships set the first precedent,
since the Canon Law, of a dissolution of a marriage
without any complaint from the parties to it? if his
Majesty has been the complainant—if he has set all
the machinery going which is now in such terrible '
operation—with what face can your Lordships call''
on the Kir.g, who, by that complaint, has already
las emphatically pronounced upon the subject as if
he had spoken from the throne, to decide on a ques-
tion' in which his dearest wishes are so deeply in-
volved ? How can your Lordships call on the third
estate to pronounce on that on which it has two-
' nounced already? My Lords, permit me again to
say, in favour of my Royal Client, that in now at-
i tempting to avert what is miscalled the trial of her
Majesty, there is no departure whatever from con-
: sistency. We ask for a trial, but we ask for a fair
i trial. We do not wish for a trial founded on scan-
i cialous imputations sealed up in a bag, and hinted
at for the purpose of poisoning the public mind. We
do not wish for a trial in which Judges are not war-
ranted in examining witnesses on oath. We do not
wish for a trial in which the ultimate sentence, is to
be pronounced by him whose interest it is to con-
demn us. Nut only is there no inconsistency on the
' part of her Majesty in endeavouring to avert this dis-
-1
gusting inquiry, but the effort is due from her to a
State in atria she is now the first subject, and of
which she may one day be the Sovereign. She owes
it to the counti y, she owes it to morality, she owes
it to justice, she on es it to all those principles on
which society is founded, and by which it Coheres
and is maintained. But, my Lords, is this Bill a
Bill of Divorce? Is it anything else? The last four
lines of the Bill would be perfectly adequate to the
description of its object. That object is but too ob-
vious. No man can be so blind as not to perceive
that the whole purpose of the Bill is to' release his
Majesty from those ties which bind him to his pre-
sent wife. If; however, this Bill were nominally a Bill
of Div-ogre, the husband must be here to be examined
upon oath, if you should think fit, as to the manner
in which he has conducted himself towards his wife;
in order to ascertain whedler she had lived apart
from him, or abroad, and ether circumstances of that
nature. In the system of divoice, which has unfor-
tunately increased so much of late, there is this se-
leitrity-;--that no husband can successfully appear at'
your Lordships' Bar, without shewing that his own
conduct has been free from reproach. If a Bill of
Divorce were . preferred before your Lordships, in
which it should appear that the wife at the time of
her marriage was young and inexperienced—that the
came from .a foreign 'country with prospects of splen-
dour and happiness as great as any female ever con-
templated—that she was suddenly assailed by every
circumstance of irritation and injury—that she found
her - husband surrounded by Mistresses—that the
birth of a child, instead of being the pledge of affec.
Lion between herself and her consort, seemed to be.
the signal for their 'total separation—that in'a few
months she was banished from the conjugal roof—that
she was' immediately and vigilantly watched by hosts
of spies and informers—that a' Report was called for
on her conduct—that after a full 'but ex-pt rte in-
quiry she experienced a full acquittal, and was again
received into the embraces of the father of her hus-
band, by whom she had never been desertedthat at
a further period she was induced to leave the coma--
trys—that an experiment was then made, whether that
a hich had not succeeded in Engla:id might succeed
in Italy—that the charges against her in this country,
where the witnesses weie known, baring been blown
to atoms, it was tried what could be done by means
of unknown witnesses in a strange land, who, if
they could not convict 'her of guilt, might at
least asperse and blacken her character—that she
had been five-and-twenty years separated from her
husband, leaving the justinference that he had abdi-
cated his rights by neglecting that care and protec-
tion, to which, as his wife, she was entitled ; 1 ask,
your Lordships; whether, under all those ciretsm--
stances, you would hear such a case at your Bar? I
will not ask with what feelings such a husband as I
have described could come to your Lordships Bar—
here I stop. But this I am bound to state-a-that if
this proceeding is to go en, I claim for my Illus-
' /lions Client, her full and ample right to every spe-
cies of recrimination. To deprive a 'wife against
a bom 2 divorce is sued; ht her right of recrimination,
is to give an undue advantage to a husband who may
be unjustly aiienated from her. if such a husband
has, by unkindness, driven his wile Irom her home,

•. . •
• . •
istio a Situation in which she is neneceisiarn), subjected
to' suspicion, besought not tble allowed io take ad=
vantage of his wrongs, by being protected from all
inquiry into his own conduct. I therefore feel that I.
have a right to state, shortly, what I conceive her Ma-
jesty's rights to be on the present occasion. I think
that the right of recrimination is the most important
right that a Queen Consort can possess on such a
proceeding as the present. And I think further, that
if any doubts exist on this point, the more they are
sifted, the more surely and speedily will they be re-'
moved. Unless, indeed, your Lordships are pre-
pared to say, that those rules of morality which are
supposed binding in humble life, are to be removed
altogether from the higher classes of society—Unless
ytur Lordships are prepared to say, that where the
situation of the party is most elevated the example
is to be the leastand that where cruelty has been
most inflicted the greatest correctness and propriety
of conduct is to he observed. In all the previous
cases of Bills of Pains and Penalties they have been
defended on the ground of State necessity ; and it is.
curious to observe; that in some of these cases the
very contrary of the charge has been proved. In
the year 1700 a Bill of Pains and Penalties was in-'
troduced into the House of Commons against a per-
son named Knight, for having forged a certain in-
strument: This Bill passed the House of Commons
almost tiy acclamation. In the House of Lords the
feelings were different. In that House the votes were
equal—the Duke of Leeds gave the casting vote
against the Bill, and it was of course lost. The in-
dividual was afterwards tried fa:- the same offence
in Guildhall, and acquitted ! Thus, by the vote of
the•Duke.of Leeds, the Parliament was saved from
the disgrace of having passed an unjust sentence on
an innocent •person-:—. from having given a vote in
direct contradiction to the verdict of a Court of Jus-
tice. The same House of Lords, though they refused
to find the Earl of Strafford guilty when that Noble-
man was impeached, subsequently passed a Bill of
Attainder against him, under which he forfeited his
life. Is it possible, my Lords, to quote a stronger
case than this ?—[The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman here quoted the observations of Hume
on the death of the Earl of Strafford, where he states
that the fate of that Nobleman ought to be a lesson
of caution to all future Monarchs and Governments
in their proceedings against any individuals, private
or public.l—Your Lordships must see the danger
which arise from any deviation from the clear
line marked out by the laws and constitution of the
country. In the cases of Kelly, Lords Rochester,
and Lovat, this is to be particularly observed. The
latter was accused on written depositions, and the
writer was then dead ; his Lordship was not allowed
an opportunity of falsifying the testimony produced
against him. So that, on that occasion, he was re-
fused what must have been granted to him had living
witnesses been brought against him—an opportunity
of contradicting their testimony. If this Bill is to Le
supported on the ground of state necessity, then I
suppose the party accused must be got rid of, whe-
ther guilty or inrttcent. No regard must be paid to
the justice or injustice of the case. But if this exigent
state necessity exists, your Lordships have a right to
have it clearly demonstrated to you. You surely
have a right also to consider the danger which is
likely to attend such a proceeding. In speaking of
danger, I beg your Lordships to consider that I do
not, even in the most distant manner, allude to what
is at this moment passing, or to what may hereafter
pass, out of doors. I know that your Lordships are
actuated by that great ma.xim—fiet justitia ruat eve-
luyn. .I know that, happen what may, your Lord-
ships are determined to do what you conceive to be
your duty. But the danger to which 1 allude is of a
different nature. I allude to the imminent danger
in which such a measure as that now befoie your
Lordships will place tlfe Monarchy of this country.
Suppose for a moment that this Bill were passed, and
that her Majesty were to be divorced from the King,
and degraded to any extent. In such an event, if
the King were to marry again, and have a male
child, are there not many, very many in this coun-
try, who would entertain doubts of the validity of
such second marriage, and who consequently would
question the right of that child to succeed to the.
Throne? I know that it would be ridiculous in me,
as a lawyer, to dispute the power of an Act cf Par-
liament; I am aware that the lineal descent has been
regulated by Acts of Parliatlient, on various occa-
sions ; but I allude to public opinion, by which Par-
liament itseil has been sometimes controuled, and I
ask what is -there not to be feared to this country
from a disputed succession? The title of Henry IV.'
to the Crown was recognized by Act of Parliament,
as was also the title of Henry VI. In the sante year,
the title of Edward IV. was recognized, and nine I
years after, Henry VI. was again recalled. I next I
come to Henry VIII. That Monarch's marriage
with Catherine was declared illegal; and Mary was,
in 1534, excluded by Act of Parliament from the
succession. After this came his marriage with
Anne Boleyn. But, as it generally happened that
the King, some how or other, got tired of his wives
in a short time, that marriage was also set aside
by Act of Parliament, in the year 1536; and both
Mary, the fruit of the last, and Elizabeth, the
fruit of the present one, were declared illegitimate.
Next came the marriage with Lady Jane Seymour,
which in four years after was annulled. But it ap-1
pears that King Henry never got rid of one wife until'
he had got another in view. On the 28th of July,
1540,1 e divorced Anne of-Cleves, and married Queen
Catherine Howard. Here we have in one reign a
succession of Acts of Parliament palpably in contra-
dietionao each other. I need not add, that both the
children of Henry reigned successively, *though tl,-
succession had been previously changed in favour of
Lady Jane Grey. But, supposing that there was to
be no fear of a disputed succession, still I would reier
your Lordships to what took place in ]i)o9. 1 do not
wish to' revive unpleasant recollections, but I feel it
due to my Illustrious Client to revert to that period.
If .vicious and licentious conduct be sufficient to re-
move her Majesty from the Throne, then I say that is
an equally strong argument for removing a Prince
also. Then we have only to send for the evidence
and letter which were delivered in M 9, and it might
be said that others were guilty of all the crimes
charged against her Majesty—nay, much more.
',then, this. precedent were once established, the ques-
tion would then ire, not whether this or that Prince
was the next to the Crown, but whethcr.any,one
could be found to whom it could not be said,

litlievetyla,bseaetf'ter
. .
•- - •
.snixguyicaltyrsorgirossist atnodbleiebeteiltiieovusedeotnhdatttchteur•l,khfain.
having been left abroad in d torte of exile.
and beggary, was to be exposed to such a trial ? If
measure of this kind can reach a Queen Consort;
why not a Queen in her right? There he no clause
in the Bill which would prevent het Majesty .from
reigning over these realms. She vas nearly Ore! to
the Royal Family in blood, and /here was no strong
improbability of her coming one day to the Throne:-
There are at this moment the same number of person!'
(fourteen) between her Majesty and the Throne, as
there was between William and George the First.—,;,
If then a proceeding like the present is to be Sanc=
tioned, we shall hare nothing bnt a succession of
_Green Bags, containing -similar charges 2gaknst the
gown or its 'next heirs. I should have thought; that
instead of using the authority under e hich this mei;
sure has been introduced to give a sanction to these
slanders, your Lordships would have manifested a
disposition to put down those calumnies (the more
especially such as are levelled again t persons in high
authority), the dissemination of which has been for
such a length of time the crying disgrace of • this
country. if a proceeding of this nature is to be ens
tertained by your Lordships against the Queen, you
are equally competent to entertain a similar . cite
against the Heir Apparent or the Heir Presumptive
to the Throne. If one Peer can introduce a measute
to uncrown the Queen, what is to prevent another
Peer from introducing a measure to uncrosYn the
King? I think that such a measure could he carried
on the same principle; and further, I welt know-,
that public opinion, which, after all, disposes of kings
doms, and crowns, and sceptres, will take its bias
from such proceedings, and will operate, and fatally
to the Monarchy of this country. There are, I• am
aware, perions who say that the Queen will receive
as much justice as any other person similarly situated.
But I contend, that no other subject can be placed in
the same situation as her Majesty now is. I say, that the
precedent established by this Bill will reach other
Princes. I know not whether, from what passed oh the
6th of June, there be not persons busily scraping to-
gether anecdotes of all the Princes of the Blood= to
serve as matter of future accusation. If any .person
wished to undermine the Constitution and Monarchy
of this country, they could not go about it- more
surely and effectively than by a measure such as
that now bvfore your Lordships. , Will not, I ask,
the uncrowning of the Queen lead to.the uncrown.
ing of the King ? . I 'ask your Lordships, whether
you are not aware that this was the case at a;1 tithes?
—lt is a remarkable fact, that the atrocities of the
French Revolution commenced by heaping calum
nies on, and offer ing indignities to the Queen of that
country. Your Lei-if-hips, doubtless, recollect the
splendid culogium pronounced by that great. man,
Mr. Burke, upon the Queen of France, that illus-
trious Lady who fell a victim to a lawless populace.
There is another point toohich I beg to call the at-
tention of your Lordships. It has been strictly laid
down on former occasions, that man iage was both
a civil and a religious contract. I trust your Lord-
ships will reconsider your opinions on this point, and
allow Dr. Lushingo n, who is so mudi more ma-ter
of this part of the subject, to address you upon it.—
But if your Lordships should refuse to do so, I must
then appeal to the flight Reverend the Prelates to
interfere for the preservation of the sanctity of the
marriage contract. I trust your Lordships will,
above all things, seriously weigh the balance of evil
which is likely to arise from this measure. I trust
also, that you will root yourselves over l( ok any nat-
ter which is calculated to injure, of produce a dis-
regard for the marriage tie. Look, my Lords, to the
moral feelings of the country,• which this measure is
calculated to outrage. Observe that this Bill can,
not be productive of any good—but must, be the
result what it may, produce infieite harm to the coun-
try. I must here, on the part of her Majesty, pro.
test against any proceeding by Bill of Pains and Pe-
nalties, when the scene is laid in a foreign and dis-
tant land, when the inquiry is to be into a life of
more than six years, and when the accused has been
refused a list of the witnesses against her. This last
refusal placed her Majesty in a worse situation than
any person taking his trial in one of the lower Courts.
The request made to your Lordships was, in fact,
that thisgreat principle might be preserved, but mo-
dified according to your Lordships pleasure, so as
to avoid inconvenience. This, however, has been re-
fused. In the case of a charge in the lower Courts,
witnesses appeared before a Grand Jury, and the
accused had an opportunity of ascertaining the cha-
racter of the persons by whom the accusation was
to be supported. But her Majesty has been denied
• this right. Therefore, instead of having received
any favour at the hands of your Lordships,. she has
every riht to complain. Again, I say, that .in her
Majesty s name I protest against this Bill of Pains and
Penalties in a case which admits of impeachment.
-I also protestagainss your Lordships not discharging
the duties imposed on you, as well as your exercise
of a power not contemplated by the Constitution.
Your Lordships may meet with the co-operation cf
the other branch of the Legislature ; but be it re-
membered, that you may also .meet with its check
and controul. 1 must here guard myself from any
imputation, fi'om what I have said, that either I or
my Learned Friends are declining the conttst.
we do not shrink item the combat, we are ready and
anxious to meet it. Here I feel it my duty to state,
that I owe to my Illustrious Client an apology, for
having, in the line of argument which I have beea
obliged to take, allowed even a possibility of the
truth of the charges against her. I feel a perfec:
conviction of her innocence ; I feel also, that there
cannot be brought .igainst her anything, which, to
on honourable mind, will be a proof of her guilt. tot
concluding, I beg to say, my Lords, that wl4:l4wr:
may be enacted—whatever may be done, by the er-
erticns of any individual, by the perversion of truth.
or through the pet iary of witnesses— v, hatever be the
consequences which may follow, and whatever she
may suffer—l will, for one, never withdraw from her
those sentiments of dutiful homage which I owe to
her rank, to her situation, to 'her sorerior mind, to
her great and Royal heart ; nor, my Lords, will I
ever pay to any one who may usurp her Majesty',
station, that respect which belongsalone to her whom
the laws of Goo and man have made the Consort ui
the king, and the Queen of these kingdoms."
Dexiotra having •finished sneaking, her MA.
.3 EST y, accompanied by Lads- Anlasio.rox, rusk
from her wet, and euitted the i,ssoase for a f!iett