Star.
London, England, 1820-11-11 00:00:00

as strong a legal presumption of guilt as theevitlence for the Bin

itsßf ; and looking also at the evidence which might have been•
produced for the defence, and the non-production of which ought
to have been accounted for; looking at all these circumstances,
I think it will be difficult for any man to lay his baud on
his heart, and say, Not Guilty. I must again say, that if your
Lordships are not convinced of the Queen's guilt on legal eel.,
dence, no moral conviction—no question of policy or expe-
diency, can justify your finding her guilty. The Noble and
Learned Lord then alluded to the case of Trieste, in which.
c there was first moral onvictTon, and afters ands legal evidence
that the Queen was not there more than a day and' a half. I.
feel gratified, and so I am sure will your Lordships' that I am.
now going to utter my last words on this great and melancholy
question. If I feel that the guilt of the Queen has been proved,.
by legal evidence, I shall act accordingly, but if I was not, so
convinced, no earthly consideration should induce nu to vote.
for the third reading; but after hearing all the evidence, and
devoting every attention in my power to the subject, I cannot
conscientiously but vote for the third reading of the Bill.
The Bishop of CHESTER rose to state, that he had voted
for the second reading of the Bill upon the full conviction-that
her Majesty was guilty of the crime imputed to her, which had
been proved by circumstantial evidence of the strongest nature.
Certainly thk evidence had been no more than circumstantial,
but if the Queen was innocent, her innocence was accompanied
with such corroborants of guilt as never had been heard of in the
annals of history. It was from a moral view of the question:
that he was induced to vote for the second readiug of the Bin,
but it would be recollected that he had decidedly given his,
opinion and his vote against the Divorce Clause. This he
had done because he considered that clause contrary to all este-
Wished usages, and opposed to the divorce precept. Ile at,
the same time thought himself bound to repel the insinuation
made by Noble Lords on the opposite side, that those who had
voted for the Bill and objected to the Divorce Clause, weresanc.!
droning the degradation of the King. Nothing could be
more abhorrent from his mind than the idea of performing.any
act which could tend to degrade his Sovereign ; " and it is."
the itev. Prelate said, " with horror I heard it stated by a •
Noble Lord (Grosvenor), that if he was the Archbishop of Can..
terbury, and had been requested by his Majesty to omit the
Queen s name in the Liturgy, he would throw the Prayer-book
in his Majesty's face. It is with horror,
HOMSCO nferens,
I have heard his most gracious'Majesty compared to the most
atrocious tyrant that ever disgraced a Throne." This viii;
indeed, an attempt to degrade his 'Majesty, and contained
the most unparliamentary and unmerited attack upon Sove
reignty that had ever been made • for he was convinced that
the Regency of his Majesty would bear a comparison .with
the proudest period of British history. The Learned Prelate
then declared that as he could not• conscientiously vote against
the Bill, being clearly of opinion that her Majesty was guilty.
and as he coufd not consistently vote for the Divorce
ClAuse, his impression with respect to that Clause, remains**
unchanged, he should withdraw himself front the House, and
give no vote one way or the other.-(../ lasigfa,.ond cries of
" Hear, hear!" and " Oder!")—He concluded by assuring
the Douse, that he should sit down with one satisfaction-.the

consciousness of having performed the whole of Ms duty-k this
painful investigation.
Earl GROSVENOR laid it was impossible not ' tolleaganit
upon their Lordships to take notice of what had fallen from the •
' Learned liielate. If he recollected right, he had stated' whet
was supposed to have passed betwten his Majesty end JUf Ml.:.'.
sisters—that there had been.runtours, which were teethed
Ministers, that the King had been the main cause of the agitation
of the question, and that his Majesty had proposed the omission Of
the Queen's name in the Liturgy himse:f. *lie (Lord G.) had dg•
tinctly stated, that such rumours tended to throw odium and cub-. ;
tempt upon the Crown, and were in every respect wklted and
injurious t and he admitted, that be, had declared, that if
werein
.the place of au Archbishop of einterlsory, to whom
such a proposition was made, he should not hesitate to throw •
aside puiretflio in the manner alluded to—(Cries 4f Hccei
Ile ackuusviedged that he had also stated, that it'le was a AN-

"746::

%-
,

asp •e • . . . •

R '•

~,.-

w--
mister, he would sooner trample under foot the seals of office
than introduce a meallatre so olbsoxions!—(Hearthearthear). It
would not be rorgetten,That iris Majesty'e Ministers had asserted
in that House, that if the measure appeared not to meet the gene-
ral concurrence of the House, they would not persist in maintain-
Mg it. Did their Lot dships think that a majority of 28 was
evidence of a general concurrence ?—(Leud cries of Hear!}—He
should say no more in answer to the censorious comments of
the Learned Prelate, than declare, that everything he heard
more and more convinced him of the impropriety—the absurdity
of the measure—(Load cries of " Question!" when the h\oble Lord
sat down).
Lord ERSK INE took the opportunity to notice the argu-
ment of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, which was ground-
ed on the case of the murdered man. The circumstances
stated, were certainly a strong presumption of guilt, but he
begged to know, what the Jury would have thought, if the
person brought forwatd to prove the murder, had declared in
Court, that he had seen neither the bloody knife nor the mur-
dered man?—(Hear, heart boar).—This was the case to which
the present might indeed be compared, for he must assert that
so complete a contradiction to the statement of the Attorney-
General had never been given, than that which appeared all
through the evidence for the prosecution from the mouths of
the witnesses, not only in cross-examination, but in the direct
examination of all the evidence—(Hear, hear).
The Duke of GRAFTON said, that after having looked
with the greatest attention to the evidence for the Bill, and par-
ticularly to that of Majocchi and De Mont, he must, upon his
honour and conscience, say, 1, Not Guilty."—(Loud crier of
Hear, heJr.)
The Marquis of HUNTLEY said he was as decidedly con-
vinced of the Queen's guilt, as the Noble Deke seemed to be
convinced of her innocence. The evidence of Mr. Hownam was
quite enough to establish her guilt. Indeed he was greatly surprised
that the Noble Lords opposite had thought for a moment that
the evidence was not satisfactory, and he hoped they would
gl*e a proof of the sincerity with which they had delivered their
opinions, in their conduct to their wives and daughters—(A
laugh, and cries of Itcar, hear). His Lordship was deter-
mined not to give a silent vote, notwithstanding the threats
held out by Counsel at that Bar.
The Marquis of DONEGAL said, there were some power-
ful contradictions to be found in the most essential parts
of the evidence of blajocchi and De Mont, particularly
with respect to the dress of her Majesty, and the bath.—
With respect to the charge of familiarities, there had not been
de slightest proof that Bergami and the Queen had slept alone
in the tent un any one night—(Land cries of Question !).—He
assured their Lordships that he should give his vote as conscien-
tiously as any of their Lordships, having suffered no bias
to interfere with the conclusion arising from his examination of
the evidence. His vote should be against the Bill, as a measure
injurious to all parties, as well as to the best interests of the

station.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said, he had determined to
vote for the third. reading of the Bid, provided it was unaccom-
panied by the Divorce Clause, which he considered to be incon-
sistent with the general tenour of the Christian Religion, and
Inconsistent with the Standing Orders of the House, which
were founded upon the principles of impartial justice. The
House not having separated that most objectionable Clause
from the Bill, he was compelled, by his couscientious feelings, to
v ne apinst the third reading of the 1111--(Lond cries npeor).—
reszetted to be obtiveti to oppose many of those with whom
he usu-ily voted ; but he was convinced that consistency of con-
duct was the best s;:curity against misrepresentation--(Hear.)
Lord ALV A NLEY spoke a few words against. the Bill. He
declared that he bad not heard anything front Counsel at the
Bar, which deserved the character given of their conduct by
the Learned Prelate.
Lord DARN LEY could not let the question goio their Lord-
ships, without appealing to those who had before wavered in their
opinions as to the guilt of her Majesty, to stand between Minis-
ters and t uin ! The mass of the Commons of England would,
he was convinced, resist, with all their force, this iniquitous
Bill, and other nations would view the conduct of the Upper
House of Parliament with the deepest contempt.
Here there were loud cries of " Que3a,n!"—Strangers were
th.:ll ordered to withdraw.
At twenty minutes past one o'clock the House divided on the
question, that this Rill be now read a third time:
CONTENTS - - -
is ON-CONTENTS -

. 108
. 99

Majority for the Third Reading -

On the question being put, that the Bill do now pass,
Lord DACItE rose amid very vehement cries of " Orskr;"
and as soon as the Peers had taken their seats, he observed, that
h..: had been entrusted with a Petition front haralajesty, pray-
ing to be heard by Counsel against the passing of the BilL—
(Much cheering).
The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose immediately, and said that
he apprehended such a course would be rendered unnecessary
by what he was about to state—',!hear, !rear).—lle could not
he ignorant of the state of public feeling with regard to this
measure, and it appeared to be the opinion of the house that
the Bill should be read a third time only by a majority of nine
votes—(Murh cheering,).—!lad the third readiog been carried
by as considerable a number ot l'ecrs as the second, he and
his Noble Colleagues would have felt it their duty to per-
severe vsith the 801, and to send it down to the other branch
ot the Legislature. In the present state of the country, how-
ever, and with the division of sentiment, so nearly balanced,
ju.,t evinced by their Lordship.:, they had come to the determi-
nation not to proceed further with it. It was his intention, ac-
coidingly, to move that the question that the Bill do pass be
put on this day six monflts—(The mast tat:meat cheering took
place at this tin...airccted de daeatt~rt).
Earl GREY rose as soon as the Earl of Liverpool had re-
sumed his seat, but the confusion did not subside moil after his
Lordship had been for some time on his legs. His Lords*
complained of the whole course Ministers had pursued with re-
gard to the Bill, which, after the declaration ot the Noble Earl,
could scarcely be said to by before the House, but which was
still betore the country, and would long live in its memory—
( Hear, hear).-11e charged the servants of the Crown with the
grossest neglect of duty, in the first instance, in listening only to
exparte evidence, and giving a willing credence to the most ex-
aggerated and utiluunded ealumuies—(Lmd cheering).—They
had thus for many months agitated the nation—they had pro-
duced a general stagnation of public and private business—and
they had given a most favourable opportunity, were it desired,
to the enemies of internal peace and tranquillity. They had
betrayed their King, insulted their Queen—(L sol cries of hear
franc sides)—and had given a shock to the morals of society
by the promulgation of the detestable and disgusting evidence,
in the hearing of which tke House had been so long occupied—
(Hear, Lordship also reprobated in the severest
terms the conduct of the Milan Con *ssioners, who having
been appointed, not to investigate truth, but to obtain testimony
or guilt, had found in this country but too great an inclination
to put faith in all the stories their agents and witnesses might
it:vent against dee. honour and reputation of the Queen of (ilea
Britain. The result had been that, after inquiries, secret and
open—after the grossest calumnies and the foulest libels had
been made the subject of detail and debate for en days—after
all the injury that it was possible to do the Queen had been ac-
optnplished, the Bill was abandoned, not without reason, but
assuredly without apology. His Lordship concluded by as-
suring Noble Lotds on the other side, that the people of Great
Britain would not be satisfied with the mere withdrawing of
the measure, but would demand a strict inquiry into its founda-
tion and origiu—((;reat cheering).
The Duke of 'MONTROSE rose (other Scotch Peers rose
too, but gave way to his Grace). lie said he was as little deh-
rient in cotisci;nce, courage, and spirit, as any man. He di(-
fered from both the Noble Earls, to whom he nevertheless gave
ample credit for the best motives. Ile differed from Lord Grey,
thinking the case proved; and front Lord Liverpool, in re-
fusing to let the Lady, proved (he thought) guilty, continue his
Sovereign's wife. He could not agree to thus dropping the
Bill—(8a ne cries,/ Haar, hcar,frons the Scotch and Cuis,t Lords).
Lord ERSKINE addressed a few words to their
Lordships in a manner truly emphatic and striking—
" 1 have heard (said he) the proposal of the Noble
Earl-1 see the fate of this odious measure corisum-
mated—and 1 feel nothing but the most lively and
entire satisfaction. I heartily rejoice in this event.
My Lords, I am an old man ; and my lite, whether
it have been for good or for evil, has been passed
nder the sacred rule of the law. In this. moment I
(eel my %trench reuok,ated ands repaired by that rule
• •