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

Y

The ATTORNEY Gat CRAL thin rose. He could
not refrain from observing, after his Learned Friend
had aidressed their Lordships with so much ability
in this stage of the proceeding, that he thought they
could have no reason to regret the election they had
made subsequently to the objection which was taken
yesterday ; because (undoubtedly, in consequence of
the license with which their Lordships had indulged
them upon the present occasion) they had bad all the
advantage which they possibly could have obtained
in this stage of the proceedings, by statements of
t'acts, which, although they were all introduced into
:his part of the case as facts, he must contend were
sot yet founded on the evidence before their Lord-
ships; by,assumptions, gratuitously made, and, by
calumnies—(an expression by which he meant not the
.lightest disrespect to his Learned Friends, but he
'nun repeat it)—by calumnies, unsupported, at pitilb
.cct, by anything but their own assertion—(Cries
srelk out!' from scveral Peers).—He found himself,
•
t 2refore, placed in this most difficult of all situa-
I: .ss, prepared as he was, and had come there to
y. sre the only question which he understood to be
ss ore their Lordships—namely, the principle of this
BJ. He was now driven, by the course which his
Learned Friends had taken, to consider the facts of
the case as they had chosen to represent them. He
stood, therefore, under this disadiantage—that while
their assertions would go forth to their Lordships
and to the world as having. been made by them from
their own knowledge of the facts, he.svas not, in this
stage, at liberty to contradict them--(flear, hear!).
With respect, however, to' what had been stated, he
1,4,1 only to observe, that nine-tenths of what their
Lordships had heard was foreign from the question
ts he discussed, and, he felt, could not, would not,
make a deep impression on their Lordships. The
cssstion to be considered was, whether they would
c .ssrtain the grave and solemn, but di sgustints charges
F: ;erred
. against her Majesty; or whethert.hey were
:p tred to say, that, notwithstanding the proof to
i)2 aliuced, there was something in this Bill that it
ossh: not to be followed up by the enactments con-
:siscd in the preamble? This was his view of the
.:ne-sion before their Lordships. But see how it had
' sea argued by his Learned Friends. They had or-
, e-a .1 the question as if the preamble had not been
z
yeti, and yet they had indulged themselves in
taking of spies, informers, perjured and suborned
ss:s.ssszs! When those witnesses had given their
I....simony, the time would come to speak of their
c:.aracter, and the nature of their testimony. This
hiss of proceeding was, in fact., nothing more or less
tLan tampering with their Lordships feelings, and
sisn!aless it must have made an impression upon
th:ir minds. His Learned Friends had also placed
another difficulty in his way: they had found fault
%salt the framing of the preamble of the Bill, and not
snisfied with that, had gone through its whole history.
They attacked the proceedings of the Secret Com-
mittee, and went on to spew the disadvantage under
which her Majesty laboured, in consequence of not
having her case brought before a Grand Jury. But
their Lordships had decided that this was the only
mode of proceeding ; they had decided, that the
crime with which her Majesty was accused, though
if committed in England would be Treason, could
not be so construed, having been committed abroad,
cud with a foreigner. They bad in fact decided,
that her Majesty was not amenable to any of our
Courts of Justice, and that this was the only mode
of proceeding which could be instituted. Their
Lordships instituted this inquiry on the Report of a
Secret Committee; this, it was urged, iieprived her
Majesty of the benefit derived from a Grand Jury.
list did the*Committee find her Majesty guilty of
asy one charge? They merely said, that from what
had been.laid before them, they were of opinion that
there was serious ground of charge against her Ma:
jesty, affecting the dignity of the Crown, and they
recommended to the House to proceed to an in-
quiry. See, then, how the arguments of his Learned
Friends were applied—first, they found fault with
the preamble of the Bill ; and, secondly, they qpar-
relied with the measure itself, which their Lordships,
having read it the first time, had sanctioned. It Was
said the Committee reported on unvouched documents.
lie had no means of knowing upon what statements
the Secret Committee reported, nor did he know
from whence his Learned Friends drew their infor-
mation, but he was much mistaken if the Select Com-
mittee had not had the sworn testimony of witnesses
in support of the itatements laid before them. But
whether they had or had not such testimony was not
row the question; their Lordships had decided upon
that Report, and that decision could 'cot now be
called in question. Next, he had heard a most sin-
gular and extraordinary attack, coming, as it did,
from a Lawyer, such as he knew his Learned Friend
(Mr. Denman) to be. He (Mr. Denman) urged that
th: preamble of the Bill contained matter that is not
inserted in bills of indictment at common law; that
it, in fact, contained the evidence upon which the
charge was to be supported. Did his Learned Friend
ma know, that in the case of the highest crime known
to the law, in the case of high Treason, the evidence
in support of the charge was detailed in the indict-
ment ? But who ever heard of a person so accused
complaining of this ? So far from being a hardship, it
Was a benefit to the accused. Again, he (the Attor-
ney-General) was accused of not daring to call things
by their right names, of substituting the words—
' adulterous intercourse; for the word adultery.
Nsw, in nine cases out often, it occurred in actions for
adultery, that the terms illicit intercourse, cri-
minal conversation, adulterous intercourse,' &C. &c.
were substituted for the word adultery' itself.—
Why then, he said, that with respect to the preamble
of the Bill, it stated what it was proper to state—
namely, the facts that were to be proved. His Learned
Mr. I)er.man, had, on this part of thesubjeck
salivated his audience with many comments on the
::,cure and character of the indecent and offensive
laroi:iarity and freedom which the preamble presumed,
and of the titles of hollow which the Queen had con-
tetred. lic had talked much of the different interpre-
tations which would occur to different minds in judg-
ing of these terms. What might be thought an lode-
yeast familiari;y with a menial in her Majesty's service
by (nle person, might be viewed mere indulgently by
*:Mtlaer. All he (the Attorney-General) should say
:0 these arguments, if argument's they could be
called. was, that they were wholly out of their
place. Let the time come when these facts were
1,, ly2 loosed in evidence, •atal their citaracter es.
and their Losdships would ilsen ban LO

judge whether the ev:de ice justified the acts stated
in the preamble, and of course the preamble itself.—
The whole of the argument against proceeding by
Bill of Pains and Penalties, rested on the ground of,
their Lordships acting in that case in their legisla-
tive, and not in their judicial capacity, and contending
for an impeachment, they were bound to have sliewn,
that in the present case an impeachment could have
been maintained. That proof they had declined ;
and their Lordships, he trusted, would agree with
him, tharthe wisest course which could have been
"pursued, was the one which was the least subject to
doubt and uncertainty. Besides, he would confi -
dently say, that notwithstanding all those airs of
triumph with which those objections were introduced
I—notwithstanding all the inflammatory language
which accompanied their statement, that a very diffe-
rent character would have been given to the mea-
Enre of proceeding by a Bill of Pains and. Penalties,
had not that been the very measure, which, In
the present case, had been adopted. It was adopted
because it adverted to certain charges against her
Majesty the Queen, which, though of the gravest im-
port, were not a violation of any law, while the best
authorities supported the doctrine that an impeach-
ment could not be maintained but for a breach of a law.
Suse, then, he was, that notwithstanding all the chal-
lenges now so heroically thrown out, notwithstand- ;
ing all those allusions-to the morality of the country, :
and all those varioustopics so liberally brought into
view, had impeachment been the proceeding adopted,
the very same objections would have deprecated it,
and have said, that the proceeding in the case of an
adultery should have been by Bill, and not by ini-
ipeachment, because by the adoption of the latter
course, the accused party was:deprived of the power
of recrimination. They complained of the proceed-
ing by Bill, because they were now shut out from re-
crimination, and strange to say, regret that the im-
peachment was not adopted; a course of proceeding
which no lawyer would venture to assert, allowed
the accused to recriminate. All this contradiction
had its purposes ; it was to terrify and to alarm, and
to withdraw the minds of their Lordships from the
real question on which they had to decide. His
Learned Friends had, it was to be recollected, taken
this course, not in the exercise of a duty compulsive
with them, but acting under an indulgence so very
rarely allowed by that House, so rarely indeed, that
the divorce case of the Duke of Norfolk was the only
one to be foundewhere the Counsel of. the accused was
allowed to interfere before the evidence
.Was
pro-
duced. It vas not, then, too much to expect that those
sweeping charges should have been deferred until the
character of the evidence to be produced was ascer-
tained ; before the charge of corruption was thrown
out against witnesses to be examined. Surely his
Learned Friends should wait until enabled to sustain
such imputations by proof. Considerable stress had
been laid on the nature of the protest which had been
recorded in the case of Bishop Atterbury, on the Jour- I
nals of that House, a protest signed by many Peers,
at the head of whom was the Lord Chancellor Cow-
per (Mr. Brougham, in a low tone, observed, not
Lord Chancellor at the time). In the inference which
his Learned Friends wished to draw from that pro-
test, did they think, that because in the proceeding
by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, the solemnity of pro-
nouncing their opinion on their honours was not
ob-
served, that they would abandon those high senti-
ments which belonged to their character and station,
and decide not as honourable men on their convictions
of guilt and innocence, but under the sway of some
base motive or sordid calculation? Their Lordships,
he was confident, had far other impressions; they, he
knew, felt, that though in form they sat legislatively,
yet, in effect, on the present charge, they would have
to pronounce judicially. The very protest in the
Atterbury ease, which his Learned Friends so much
relied or., went to prove that the very proceeding
by Bill of Pains and Penalties was not resisted, by
the Peers who protested, on any such grounds.—
Whence arose their opposition? It arose from this,
that such a course led to two judicial proceedings—
that it permitted a judicial proceeding by the House
of Commons, subsequent to the decision of the House
of Peers. Would her Majesty the Queen complain
of that?—" Do not part," said the protesting Peers,
" with such an essential privilege. Yours is the pre-
rogative to decide on judicial questions, beware how
you delegate that power to any other body differ-
ently constituted." It never entered their concep-
tions to contend that the character of the House was
altered, because in form they sat in a legislative ca-
pacity. The mischief against which they wished to
provide, was the relinquishment of privileges con-
sidered the most sacred—the dividing the power of
pronouncing judgment, and letting in another power
Lot so competent, from its constitution, to form so
correct and important a decision. They were un-
willing- to delegate the power to a body, where pol
pular feelings and passions were supposed to find a
greater vent, and commanded a greater influence.
And judging, as he well might, from what was at,
present passing • out of doors, surely this would be
the last argument which her Majesty would urge
against such "a proceeding, and of which she would
be the least inclined Go avail herself. To those ar-
guments, the protesting Peers added the capability
of their Lordships to sift the evidence on oath.—
The power it had to command the assistance of the
Judges of the land, their vigilance in guarding •
agatust the violation of the rules of evidence, rules
which were unfortunately too loosely attended to in
the other Houscaad the general weight, probability,
and credit, due to. the evidence produced. What
was the other objection to the proceeding by a Bill
of Pains and reealties ? It was this, that the Bishop
of Rochester was amenable to the Common Law
tribunals of the comity. Why, said . the opposers
of the Bill in that case, adopt an extraordinary mode
of proceeding when the ordinary judicature of the
land was open to yuu ? What was the fact in the
present case? . It w4s this, that no proceeding in the
criminal judicature was open. This opinion, before
contended for, was now confirmed by the brit au-
thority, that of the Judges of the land. Had such
not been his opinion, had it opt been upheld by the
decision of the Judges, had there existed a power of
bringing these charges before any of the branches of
the criminal judicature of the country, he (the Actor •
ney-General) would never have presented himself to
exercise that duty, in the discharge of which he ap-
-I.eared that *day at their bar—he would say further,
that under a supposition, -in language as strong
- as that itmployeci nu the protest on the Atterbury

I Bill, he would have deprecated such a procedure.
!Do not, h.? would haire said, bring in a Bill of Pains
!find-Penalties, if it be open to you to subynit these
charges to the discharge of a Jury of the country.
That question has been fortunately set at rest—for.
tunately, he said, because the decision had the effect,
of quieting the doubts and removing the appreben-
sious of some individuals in the country, pre-emi-
nently distinguished for rank and talents. Na other
course of proceeding remaining than that of a Bill
of Pains and Penalties, he defied his Learned Friends
to produce a single authority or precedent where the
facts to be proved were not stated in the preamble
of such a Bill. Wut even if it were doubtful whe-
ther or not an impeachment could be maintained,
the present procedure was the safest course ; it was
equally adyantageous to both parties, it subjected
the decision not to one but to two tribunals—to
one of which, at least, her Majesty could not have
the least objection. He felt fully the disadvantages
under which, as compared with the line of conduct
pursued by his Learned Friends, he had to. struggle.
From all reference to those declamatory topics which
so well belonged to them, and which with their splen-
did talents they knew so well how to enforce, he was
bound) by a commanding sense of duty, to abstain.
How, he would ask, would his conduct have been
arraigned had he ventured to expatiate on the enor-
mous criminality of the charges which the preamble
of the Bill set forth, committed by a Princess destined
to be elevated to the splendid station of the Queen of
these realms, or had he even alluded to the variety
of evidence by which such charges would be substan-
tiated? That course no inducement should have in-
fluenced him unnecessarily to take. When the proper
time arrived that duty may devolve on him, and, as
a-duty, nothing should deter him from its faithful
discharge, although he felt sensibly how he must
suffer. tinder the disgusting, licentious, and vicious
disclosirre which then would he exhibited. Hit
Learned Friends may prejudge, they may prejudice,
they may assail the characters of the most eminent
and illustrious in rank and station ; they may rake
from the shades of oblivion all those prejudices or
failings over which the healing spirit of time and
more correct feeling had, in consideration of his many
virtues, thrown a veil—they may select the moment
when an Illustrious Individual (the Duke of York)
was next in succession to the Throne, when the
remains of his Illustrious partner had been just con-
signed to the grave, to wound his feelings, and re,
vive recollections which a better feeling had never
disturbed : all these things his Learned Friends may
do with impunity; to him it was only open to state the
facts which he should call upon evidence to sustain.
They may declaim on the bribes by which that evi-
dence was obtained, and animadvert on the nature
of the motives which they presumed to operate on
the minds of some of their Lordships. AU that re-
mained for him was to conjure their Lordships, and
he knew he did so not in vain, to dismiss all such
inapplicable statements from their minds, and to ap-
ply themselves to the great and important question,
on which, in fact, they were called in their judicial
character to pronounce. He next came to the only
argument, for he might say one solitary argument
comprised the whole speech of his Learned Friend
(Mr. B.) yesterday. It was this, that the present pro-
ceeding was the adoption of an ex post flan law. He
did not deny it. What was the case? An Cifence
marked by our ancestors as the highest that could be
committed against the. State, had been committed by
her Majesty. When he said committed, the words were
to be understood as used flir the sake of argument.—
If the offence had been committed in this country it
would have subjected her to the sentence and punish-
ment of death. Committed abroad with a foreigner,
it came not within the penalty of the law. To say
that because-it 'teas thus committed, and in a foicii n
country, and therefore ought not to be punished,
merely because the proceeding would be an ex post
,facto proceeding, would go to destroy the principles
on which all divorce cases were sustained. He had
now answered the arguments of his Learned Friends
as far as they had confined themselves to argument ;
their declamation he did not imitate. Fortunately
for him, he was addressing an Assembly of high
rank, of great talent, and profound knowledge of the
Constitution ; and however they might be pleased
for a moment with striking powers of declamation, he
felt assured that their judgments could never be mis-
led from the real merits of the question, much less
was he apprehensive that they would be intimidated
by threats from the course of justice. He knew
that, as Mr. Denman had stated, this was a tremen-
dous. inquiry; bu't he had so much reliance on the
candour and manliness of the people of' this country,
that he was persuaded when they came to know the
facts which had always been concealed from them,
they would be satisfied at the course which the Go-
vernment bad pursued. 41 The party accused (con-
tinued the Learned Counsel) need not fear your
Lordships' judgment. If guilty, I am sure that no-
thing can be stated which will induce you to swerve
from the, path of duty ; but that- you will put your
baud to your hearts, and decide conscientiously and
justly. By your Lordships decision you will satisfy
the public, that while the meanest subject in the
realm is protected by innocence, the highest subject
cannot offend with impunity."
The SOLICITJR•GENERAL said, it was his duty to
trouble their Lordships upon a question which had been justly
characterized as important and momentous. He would confess,
that he telt with his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, as
to the course pursued by the other Legal Gentlemen. • He ex-
pected that they would have met the question with dispassionate,
legal, and constitutional, argument; but, instead of that, they
had indulged in personal invective, and departed from the sub-
ject
before them into charges against those by whom the pro-
teetljngs weie instituted, stigmatizing their motives with the
west corrupt design, and even insinuating the guilt of suborna-
tion of perjury; in the preparation of the evidence by which the
cue was to be supported. If the Queen Consort had com-
muned the cringe with which she was charged—a crime of the
deepest dye in a religious and moral point of view—he would
sib, was there a person so careless of what he owed to himself
sad to his Sovereign, as to. wish that she should sit on the Throne
fleet to the ging, after having set an example of suck depravity
to the communit y over which she must have so great an influence ?
Was there to be no inquiry into a case of this description?
Would their Lordships agree with the Learned Counsel on the
other side, that such an offence, not being a crime by the law of
the land, no punishment ought to attach to it 1 It was imposer. 1
bin that any assembly of Gentlemen coulti say the person *al
had so conducted heraelf might to enjoy the rights and prerogal
lives of a Queen Consort. What, then, were they to do? Were
they to proceed by a BiU of this kind, or by inspeachment,?—
it had been said, that this was a Bill of rains and Penalties;
fhenefore was objedtionibic.--but every Divorce Bill was of
the saw deseription. If the wife 'of a Peer committed adul..
elm the consequence was degradation and divorce.—that was a
NW of Pains atni Penalties. His Learned Friends bad endea-

soured to perstzade their Lordships that the present was a mei,
' case, by stating that it was an es post Ado law—but so was
every Bill of Divorce. In short, there was no novelty in the
Measure,. no feature of which they could not find an
ple. They call upon them to make out a strong case, and they
were proceeding to do so in the ordinary way. But was there
ever a Bill of Pains and Penalties more necessary than the pre-
sent, if the facts stated in the preamble could be substantiatad?
Mr. Brougham had said, with a sort of candour for which he
could' not thank him, that he would pass over the reign of Iktiry
Vlll.—but again, in a subsequent part of his speech, he had
brought that Monarch forward. If his Learned Friend could .
find any precedents in that reign applicable to the parts of the
present case, let him lay them fairly and boldly before the House.
He (the Solicitor General) was not afraid to meet direct cases,
but he did not know how to-deal with insinuations and oblique
attacks, in which the Queen's Attorney General was so emi-
nently successful. His Learned Friend had stated that he would
forbear from any recrimination; but his Learned Friend, though
he had disclaimed the topic in the first instance, had subse-
quently entered into recrimination. A person of his acute mind
must have known well that it could out apply to the ques-
tion now before their Lordships. But it was the miifor-
tune of the subject in which they were engaged, to be per-
petually. mixed up with collateral topics of a nature caletilated
to inflame the public mind, and to shake the foundations
of the Government. It was much to be deplored that the statue ,
course had been pursued by all her Majcety's supporters, pro-
fissional and otherwise; but recrimination, aftenall, could have
no. application to a question of that description. It was per-
fectly clear to his mind, that the remedy pointed out by the
Bill was the one that afforded thabsst, nee .ns of tryina the case.
There were but two courses open to them—that of Bill, and
that of Impeachment. Those who now asked for a proceeding
by impeachment, would have been the first and loudest to con-
demn it, if its adoption had been resolved upon. Bet in addi-
tion to its being a doubtful remedy, what punislnneut did it
afford ? Could they divorce the panics by an impeachment?
Could they degrade her from her, high tank and digoiry? No.
Fine, imprisonment, or capital punishment, were the only penal-
.ties that followed such a proceeding. lie saw, from the manner
of Mr. Brougham, that he did not accede to his lest position,
but be Would defy him to produce an instance to the contrary.
The proceeding by Bill was a judicial proceeding, on which the
Queen must be heard in both Houses. Everything was speci-
fied in the Bill—the name of the adulterer was given ; 1-ut if the
acts of adultery were not committed in one or in two kingdoms,
if they embraced a considerable portion of the globe, it was not
necessary to name one or two instances specifically, nor was it
'unnery to be so precise in an impeachment as in cases se:com-
mon indictment: He had stated the Parliementary law on the
subject, as it appeared to him ; it was for their Lordships to de-
cide upon its propriety. But his sLearned Friend bad stated,
that her Majesty was Princess of Wales at the period when
these acts were alleged to have taken place. Did that consti-
tute any distinction between the offences? Did rot the same
reasons and objections apply to her conduct as the wife of, the
Prince Regent; and was she not as criminal in the one case as
in the other? His Learned Friends had also criticised the lan-
guage of the Bill. What was the substance of the preamble?--
Without confining himself to the language, it amounted to this,
that her Majesty had preferred a menial servant—that she had
loaded him with favours and honours—that she had fenced be:-
self round with his relatives—that a degrading and unbecoming
Intimacy had subsisted between them, and that a licentious and
adulterous intercourse went on for a considerable period of time.
When they said that some of the acts constituted no offence, surely
they must admit that the whole taken together constituted a dis-
tinct and mast disgraceful charge. His Learned niend seemed
to think there was no difference betweeu the adultery of a man
and adultery committed by a woman. This wasea must extraor-
dinary proposition, whether it was considered in a legal point
of view, or with reference to the effects of this offence up..n so-
clay. Adultery in a matt was in no way punishable; adultery in
a man could not be made the subject of a Bill of Divorce, though
adultery in a female might. Why then did his Learned Felted
go out of his way to grapple with a proposition of this nature?
That he (Mr. Brougham) should have advanced so wild and
untenable a proposition as the equal criminality of adultery in
both sexes, merely for the purpose of building an attack upon
an Illustrious Person, was to him (the Solicitor-General) mat-
ter of amazement and surprize. It had been said, that there
were persons who encouraged her Majesty to go aleoed, in
order to make her the victim of a most foul and al:amicable
conspiracy. This was a specimen of the spirit and temper in
which the proceedings were conducted on behalf of her Ma-.
jetty. Was it possible that such 'diabolical wickedness could
exist in the breasts of persons of high rank and exalted station ?
But if they who encouraged her Majesty to go abroad, and who
advised her to continue abroad, with those sinistcrviews, had
abandoned every principle of honour, the man who received
such a proposal, who was the bearer of such a proposal* geed
who assented to it on the part of the Queen, we, full as bad a
man as he who made the proposal himself. He hulk vtd, how-
ever, that no blame was to be imputed to anybody in this re-
spect. Ile thought the advice which ha.i been given was the
best which under all the circumstances could possibly We given..
Would to GOD that advice had been followed? Ha would not
troable their Lordships further. The simple question before'.
their Lordships was, whether the present Bill ought to be pro-
teedsd in or abandoned, for the purpoee of proceeding by im-
peachment, liable as that course was to all the inconvenience and
disadvantages which he (the Solicitor-General), had expressed.
Mr. Bitouetieu rose to reply.—" I confess, my Lards, that
after having given the utmost attention to the arguments which
have been urged by my Learned Friends who appear as Counsel
against her Majesty, 1 fecl'myself hardly called upon in the dise
charge of my duty to my Royal Client to avail myself of the
usual privilege of reply. At allevents, I purpose to confine my. •
self to'a very few topics among those which have been urged by
my Learned Friends. With this view, and with-the full inter--'
tion of keeping a promise, which is more frequedtly made than
observed, I purpose, without further preface, to solicit your
•Lordship' attention to several of tioseeoplesi First of all, suffer
sae to observe, that a general and somewhat vague charge has
ken adduced of our having deviated horn the pint Stated to be
in issue before the House, namely, the principle of th'e BIM It
has been sild, that 1 have gone into arguments which belong to
anothair stage of the proceedings, and that I have entered into a
great *lass of collateral wetter in no way relevant to the matte;
in issue._ I think my Learned Friend would not have brought
fm std this charge, if he had adverted to the manner in which
Il aubinitted my arguments to your Lordships' notice. Suffer
are to remind pane Lordships, that I set out with stating that
*Ws was a legislative proceeding. The question was, whetiw
a new law should he made by Parliament? and in making obe
jections to that new law, every argument was relevant which
bad a tendency to arrest the course of the Legislature.' We
stand In a very different situation from that in which we should
t have been placed, if we bad hid to meet articles of impeach-
menu, or to defend in a prOceeding by indictment. In either of,
these proceedings we should have been strictly and rigidly cone
fined to the charges, withoitt the possibility of mitering isVo any
collateral arguments until the question should arise, wnether
punishmeut should be awarded? Here, on the contrary, we
are placed in a different, or rather an opposite predicament, in
which we are called upon to argue, whether this Bill shall or
shall not proceed? and this broad distinction lets in every atgu-
'tient of expediency, every view of the necessity which does or .
does hot exist for making this new law at all. It lent in, by a .
just inference, every one of those topics, which were not vaguely
and irrelevantly, put strictly and technically urged by :inner( • •
and my Learned Coadjutor before your Lordihips. Ili tee
calling your Lordships' attention to the arguments which .have .
been urged on the other side, I cannot omit the eloquent an 4,
elaborate eulogy which my Learned Frieud the Sulicitor-Gerse. • -
sal thought fit to pass upon Bills of Peins and Penalties in t.' •
abstract. They are, It seems, an integral pak of our Constinn: • '
tion. These are an ancient branch of that happy form of gov
meat intimately mixed up and interwoven with the whole tenets
of our civil and judicial policy. They are a sacred branch of
the happy Constitution of England, and GOD forbid, tßys he,
that any man who values the muter branch of that Coustint-
tion, should wish to see them abolished! Without subscribieg,
as a lover of the popular branch of our Constitation, to the non-
citor-General's praises of Bills of Pains and Penalties—for tne
Constitution includes, I conceive, the just and pure etintinistran
tion of the laws, and embraces 11 that Is valuable, and loved,
and respected for securing them—l do not mean to deny what
li-admitted in the language of Lord Chancellor Cowper. that ~
nines may by pouibitity occcr, which would nut ouly
.but enjoin the enactment of a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Rut
it lies upon him or hit employers who bring forward 'such a Bill •
to descend front its general eulogy, anti draw front thine
eulogy of this particular measure--te dernoueerati: tits necessity
which almost justifies, and, when it justifies, may tie eautved to
exact the enactment of so extraordinary a measure. Tye Sell.
citor-General has addressed your Lordships in the language anj
tone of an Advocate who forgets everything that does aos make'