Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

gainst this proceeding the Counsel for the Queen earnestly protested, and on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the House adjourned, in order to give time for consider ing this proposition.

Oct. 24.Their Lordships, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, determined, that the delay which the Attorney-General had applied for, the preceding day, in order to bring Colonel Brown to the bar in justification of the Milan Commission, should not be granted.

Captain Briggs was then examined, and, in reply to the interrogatories of the Attorney-General, distinctly stated, that Lieutenant Hownam had informed him, that on the first day Bergami dined at the Queen's table," he intreated her Majesty, on his knees, and with tears in his eyes, not to admit him to that familiarity; but to no purpose." This question had been put to Lieutenant Hownam, but he denied any recollection of the circumstance.

At half past eleven o'clock, Mr Denman commenced to sum up the evidence for the defence, and continued to address their Lordships till four o'clock, when they adjourned. On the 25th Mr Denman resumed his address, which occupied the whole of this day. It is impossible, in our narrow limits, even to attempt an abstract of Mr Denman's speech; in the course of which he endeavoured with great eloquence to demonstrate to their Lordships, that every tittle of the charges brought against her Majesty had been destroyed by the evidence for the defence, with one or two slight exceptions, which had been occasioned by the impossibility of compelling certain persons to come over from the continent to give evidence in her favour. cannot, however, omit the following eloquent and impressive conclusion." This inquiry is unprecedented in the history of the world: the downsitting and the uprising of this illustrious lady have been watched with the utmost care: scarcely a thought or a word that has not had to pass through this severe ordeal: her daily looks have been remarked with unparalleled and disgraceful assiduity. The inquisition has also been of the most solemn kind. I know nothing in the whole race of human affairs to be likened to it; there is nothing in the whole view of humanity which can be said to resemble it, but that great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed.

We

He that would bear the sword of heaven, should be as holy as heaven; and if your Lordships have been furnished with weapons and powers, which, I might almost say, omnipotence itself scarcely possesses, to arrive at the secrets of this illustrious female, you will think that the same duty is imposed upon you that belonged to the justice, beneficence, and wisdom of that benignant Being, who, when even

guilt was detected, and vice revealed, said, "If no accuser can come forward to condemn thee, neither will I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Oct. 26.-Dr Lushington was this day heard for the defence. In surveying this case, and the charges on which it was founded, some observations he said occurred to his mind, which he would shortly lay before the House. The first was, the age of the Royal Accused. Was ever an instance known in the annals of accusations of this kind, that the person against whom the charge was made was of the age of fifty? No: he would defy any one to cite a precedent so preposterous or ridiculous. The next observation that occurred to the learned counsel was, that the husband that was now claiming to be divorced from his wife, had been separated from that wife by his own voluntary act for upwards of twenty-four years. He had been so separated from her by his own act-by his own free will-without the slightest cause on her part at that time, and for the indulgence of his own fancy, he had broken the solemn bond by which God had united him to her. Who then in this House would dare to tell the Learned Counsel that that husband had any cause to complain? Who would dare to say that the King was absolved from the marriage vow, and whatever prerogatives or licences he might claim, no one could dare assert that he was emancipated from the law of God? Let no one dare say that the assertion contained in this bill," that her Majesty was further unmindful of her duty," was true. What duty did she owe? Who had neglected the duty to the discharge of which they were mutually bound? Who created the separation, and who was it that neglected the duty by which the high and low were equally bound? Would any one dare say there was one law for an ordinary man, and another for a King? Would any one say that an ordinary man was bound by an oath, while a King was not? And was there any one who would not blush to hear the manner in which this unfortunate woman had been persecuted after she had been driven from this country? Learned Gentleman then proceeded to take a comprehensive review of the whole evidence, from which he argued that the innocence of the Queen was fully established. And now, said the Learned Doctor," I leave the cause of her Majesty in your hands. I with confidence appeal, not to your mercy, but to your justice, for an acquittal."

The

Oct. 27.-The Attorney-General addressed the House in reply to the Queen's Counsel. He went again over the whole charges, and evidence for the prosecution, which he contended was not invalidated by that of the defence. He dwelt particularly on

the admission of Lieutenant Hownam, as to her Majesty and Bergami reposing in the tent on board the polacca; which he insisted was sufficient ground, without any other consideration, for their Lordships to pass the bill. The speech of the Learned Gentleman occupied two days.

During a pause in the Attorney-General's speech, Mr Brougham communicated to the House that he had received letters, of the Baron Ompteda, proving him to have been in correspondence with the servants of her Royal Highness, and attempting to seduce them to give false testimony against

their mistress.

Oct. 30.-The Solicitor-General followed on the same side. In conclusion he observed, that there never had come a case before a court of justice which so effectually engaged the attention of mankind, and upon which such intense anxiety, amongst all ranks, had been experienced as to its result. "Every passion has been appealed to by the Counsel for the Queen-they have well and faithfully discharged their duty to their Illustrious Client. We have no complaint to make of the course which they have thought proper to pursue, and we rejoice that such talents as they have exhibited have been called into action in the defence of a Queen of England. They have, I say, appealed to all the passions, in their separate addresses to your Lordships, which act with energy upon the hu man heart. They have appealed to the basest of all the passions the passion of FEAR! (Here there was a deep silence.) They have said to a tribunal renowned for its integrity, and the boldness and vigour of its counsels, in a tone which was intended to intimidate it, but which will fail in its unworthy object-one of the Learned Counsel has said, that if you pass this bill you will pass it at your peril. The word hung upon his lips too long not to be understood, and was then withdrawn. I am astonished that such topics should have been introduced. I am sure they can only have an injurious effect to the party from whom they have proceeded. I know that they can have no effect on your Lordships, and that what justice requires you will do, without regard to any personal considerations. It is not in this place alone that such devices have been had recourse to; out of doors the same conduct has been pursued, the same threats, the same unprincipled attempts have been made to intimidate your Lordships. Even the name of her Majesty has been profaned for the purpose. In her name, but I do believe without her sanction, attacks have been made on all that is sacred and venerable, on the Constitution, on the Sovereign, on the Monarchy, on every order of the State. I repeat my belief, that these attacks have not proceeded from her Majes

ty, but from persons who, under the sanction of her name, have been giving scope to the most dark and insidious designs. To suppose, for a moment, that her Majesty was a party to them, would be to impute to her Majesty a deliberate design to overthrow the Constitution and Government of the country.-But, from my soul, I acquit her Majesty of any participation in these shameful transactions; and I have only here to add my hope, that from this moment we may hear no more of them. If, my Lords, on looking at the whole state of the case, you have no more than a moral conviction that her Majesty has been guilty of the charges against her, you will, in that case, act safely, by adopting the language suggested by my Learned Friend, (Mr Denman,) and saying to her Majesty,

"Go, and sin no more!" But, my Lords, if, after calmly and dispassionately considering the whole facts of the case, you think that it has been made out so fully, so satisfactorily as to leave no rational doubt on your minds, then, knowing what I do of the assembly I have the honour to address, I am sure you will pronounce your decision with that firmness which will be consonant with your exalted station."

At the conclusion of the Solicitor-Gener al's speech, Mr Brougham made an effort to introduce, as evidence, two letters of the late Baron Ompteda to the Prefect of Police at Pesaro ; but these letters were held to be inadmissible as evidence at any stage of the proceedings, and on this ground, rather than on account of the irregular period at which they were offered, they were rejected. The numbers upon the division were, for receiving the letters, 16-against it, 145-majority, 129.

The House then adjourned till Thursday, to give their Lordships time to consider of their votes.

Nov. 2. At half past ten o'clock, the Lord Chancellor rose to address their Lordships, and said that the only question which could be now received was, whether the Bill should be now read a second time. And with respect to the great question before the House, he would say, that he would not feel himself justified in voting for the second reading, if he was not fully satisfied that an adulterous intercourse had been proved; and this principle should govern the vote of every member of the House. With regard to what might be expected from him, he would remind the House, that he did not stand in the situation of a Judge summing up, but as a Juror addressing to his brother Jurors the grounds on which he had come to his decision. His Lordship then proceeded to show that whatever might be its propriety in a constitutional view, the proceeding by a Bill of Penalties, conducted according to the legal rules of evidence, is infinitely more

favourable to an accused person than a proceeding by impeachment. It had been argued, probably with truth, that the Queen had laboured under difficulties in procuring witnesses for her defence greater than opposed the collection of evidence for the Bill. The whole benefit of that circumstance should in their Lordships' judgment be allowed to the accused. It had also been argued, and perhaps proved, that corrupt means had been resorted to against the Queen; of this too she should have the benefit, not only by the exclusion of the evidence which was proved to have been given by witnesses, tainted either as corrupted or corruptors, but all on which the least suspicion can be supposed by a reasonable analogy to attach. Casting, therefore, out of the scale, all the evidence which could be doubted, and only connect ing the evidence for the Bill which stood unimpeached, with the admission of the witnesses produced for the defence, and the negative evidence of the witnesses not produced, following this line of argument, he had in his own mind come to a decision, that the case was proved for the Bill. His Lordship proceeded through the evidence, and in reference to the threats which had been most unprecedent edly, and most improperly thrown out at the bar, he professed his full conviction, that their Lordships would disregard them "be just and fear not," and leave their ultimate reward to the sober good sense of the people of England. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill at half-past 11.

Lord Erskine followed. Were the House, he said, sitting in a judicial capacity, he would subscribe to his Learned friend's maxim, "fiat justitia ruat cœlum," but here many considerations of policy interposed. Lord Erskine proceeded, combating the injustice and impolicy of the Bill until one o'clock, when he became much exhausted, and at length fainted. He was carried out by Lords Grey and Holland, and the House adjourned for a quarter of an hour. At the expiry of the period allotted for the adjournment, Lord Erskine remaining in nearly the same state, Lord Lauderdale resunied the discussion, and argued in favour of the Bill.

The Earl of Rosebery begged to offer his sentiments to their Lordships, more from a wish to satisfy his own conscience than from any presumptuous supposition that it would be in his power to influence them in their decision on the grave and important question before them. Feeling, however, as he did, the great impropriety and evil of passing the present Bill, he was certainly desirous of occupying a few minutes of their Lordships' time, with a brief declaration of his opinion. This, he trusted, he might say, without arrogating

to himself more than that to which he was justly entitled, that there was no Noble Lord present more free from any undue partialities on this question, or more determined to discharge his duty, solely and strictly with a reference to the evidence that had been adduced at the bar, and to a view of all the circumstances of the case. It was his conviction of all the objections which existed against the bill now under their Lordships' consideration, which had induced him, at a former period, to entertain a wish, that an opening might be left for a more regular, and, as it appeared to him, a more justifiable course of proceeding than that which had been adopted. Their Lordships, however, thought otherwise, and the result was the measure before them. He now openly and freely acknowledged, that it seemed to him that there was the most decisive and uncontradicted testimony, that the most improper practices had been resorted to in support of the bill. He meant no insinuation whatever against his Majesty's government. He by no means imputed to them the practices to which he alluded; but they existed never. theless, and when he took those improper practices into consideration, and added to them the circumstance, that one important and material witness had been withdrawn, and was absent from the country, and that another important and material witness either could not, or would not come to the country, he must declare that, in his conscience, as a juryman, he could not pronounce the case to be one which would justify the second reading of the bill before their Lordships.(Hear, hear.) In proportion as the evidence by which the bill was to be supported had been weakened, in proportion was not only the justice, but even the expediency of passing it diminished. All the objections which he entertained against the measure on the score of justice, pressed on his mind with still greater force on the score of expediency. He did not wish to detain their Lordships by an enumeration of those objections, he was sure they would have the candour to allow that they were extremely numerous. There was one circumstance especially which he could not exclude from his consideration, and which he trusted their Lordships would not exclude from theirs, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the Noble Earl on the cross-bench, (the Earl of Lauderdale ;) he meant the probability, should the bill pass their Lordships, that it would be rejected in the other House of Parliament. This was a probability that, in his opinion, ought to be gravely weighed. He was the last man who would wish their Lordships to be influenced by any expression of feeling out of that House, which assumed the shape of popular clamour; but while he disclaimed all disposition to yield to any expression of

that nature, he trusted their Lordships would allow him to observe, that the decided sense of the most important and most intelligent part of the community appeared to be hostile to the Bill before their Lordships. Under these circumstances, and with a view to the various considerations bearing upon the case, he implored their Lordships to pause in their course. He implored them to act according to the dictates of that benevolence which formed so valuable a feature of the English character. If there was any doubt in their minds as to the proof of the charges which had been preferred against her Majesty--if there appeared to be any deficiency in the evidence brought to their bar, he trusted that that consideration, coupled with the question as to the expediency of the proposed measure, would induce them to abstain from passing a measure, the consequence of which would, in his opinion, be of the most mischievous kind; consequences that threatened with destruction all our most venerable and sacred institutions. Such being his view of the subject, he could not, with any satisfaction to himself, withhold it from their Lordships, and he now, therefore, declared, that whenever the question for the second reading of the Bill should be put to their Lordships by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, he should feel it his duty to say-Not Content. (Hear.)

Lord Redesdale thought the proof was full, complete, and absolute; and could not conceive how there could be a doubt on the subject in the mind of any reasonable

man.

Nov. 3.-Earl Grosvenor warmly and decidedly opposed the Bill of Pains and Penalties; and declared that the evidence, in his opinion, entirely failed to support the charges against the Queen. He said, in the course of his speech, that he understood that when the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the commencement of this reign, carried the Liturgy into the King's closet, it was the King himself who struck out the name of the Queen.

Earl Harewood declared that the evidence left doubts in his mind; and that, though he was not clearly convinced of the innocence of the Queen, he was clear as to the inexpediency of passing the Bill.

The Earl of Donoughmore spoke in favour of the Bill. He could not see how it was possible to pronounce any other verdict than that of guilty of what had been proved regarding the cohabitation for five weeks under the tent.

Earl Grey took a review of the evidence, and argued strongly against the Bill. It was not a little remarkable, he observed, that the principal witnesses in support of the prosecution, Majocchi, De Mont, Sacchi, and, he might add, Rastelli, that they were all four discarded servants of her Majesty; that three of them were dismissed in

VOL. VII.

November 1817, and Majocchi two months before that period; and that all the proof in the case was confined to the time these individuals were in the service of her Majesty.

(Hear, hear.) From the time they left the Queen not an atom of proof, not the slightest imputation of improper conduct had been tendered against her Majesty.— (Cheers.) With respect to the tent scene, so much relied upon by the advocates for the Bill, the Noble Lord contended that it afforded no proof of guilt. All the circumstances appeared to him consistent with the most perfect innocence of intention. Was it possible (he said) that two persons, who had been gratifying their passion all night, could not abstain from the same indulgence in the day; and that so extraordinary was the appetite, that they could not help exhibiting before the whole crew? It would appear as if Noble Lords had thought it to be her Majesty's practice to say, Now the fit is upon us, let down the curtain, every body knows what for. If adultery was to be carried on, why had not the part chosen for the entertainment been below the deck, where no interruption could have taken place, and where the sailors could not have had access, as they had at all times to the tent and other parts of the deck? Now, when the situation of persons on board ship was considered-a place where the most delicate female was obliged to resign all ideas of delicacy-where, as Sir W. Scott said, all persons, male and female, were cooped up into miserable intimacy, and where every word and action were known to all on board to suppose that a guilty intercourse had taken place under such circumstances was too much-to give a verdict to that effect (said his Lordship) was against common sense !(Hear, hear.)

The Earl of Liverpool followed, and spoke in support of the Bill until the hour of adjournment.

Nov. 4.-The Earl of Liverpool resumed his comment upon the evidence, and after a long and elaborate review, came to the conclusion that the Queen was guilty.

Lord Arden said, he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and thus do all in his power to spare the Crown the odium which such a measure would cast upon it.

Lord Falmouth declared his objection to the Divorce Clause, and he trusted it would be removed in the Committee, otherwise he could not give his vote for the second reading.

Lord Harrowby said, although he had concurred in bringing the Bill before the House in its present shape, yet if any discussion took place in the Committee as to the propriety of omitting or retaining the Divorce Clause, he should oppose it. (Hear, hear.)

Lord Ellenborough was decidedly opposed to the second reading; to procced fur3 N

[blocks in formation]

His Lordship then proceeded to contend that a Bill of Pains and Penalties was impolitic, and that the disgrace and degradation the Queen had entailed upon herself and her high station, might be adequately punished and recorded by an address representing her conduct to the Crown.

Lord Erskine resumed his speech against the Bill; and contended that the credibility of the principal witnesses for the prosecution had been destroyed. "I declare (said his Lordship) as my firm and unalterable opinion, that a cause of this nature, ushered in and pursued by witness after witness, perjured and exposed as in the instance before us, could not be supported in any of our Courts of Justice. Were I Judge in such a cause, I would not advise a Jury to find a verdict against a defendant, and were I a Juryman, I would not follow such an advice."

Lord De Dunstanville and Lord Manners spoke in favour of the Bill.

The Duke of Newcastle said he had been prevented by domestic business from being present during the defence; but he had read over the evidence, and his opinion was that the Queen was clearly, indisputably, and incontestibly guilty, not only of the alleged adultery, but of conduct in other respects disgraceful and degrading.

The Marquis of Lansdowne argued with considerable warmth against the Bill. With regard to the scenes on board the polacca, he could not help regretting, that her Majesty should have placed herself in a situation in which, though in his mind there was no sufficient proof of her guilt to authorize the passing of the present Bill, yet it was impossible for her Majesty to prove her innocence.

Nov. 6.-The Marquis of Lansdowne concluded his speech by stating that the removal of the Divorce Clause would be an aggravation of the penalties of the Bill on her Majesty, instead of a mitigation.

The Duke of Northumberland spoke in favour of the Bill,

Lord Howard, Lord Enniskillen, Lord Calthorpe, and the Marquis of Stafford, spoke severally against the Bill.

Lord De Clifford was perfectly satisfied from the evidence that her Majesty had been guilty of an adulterous intercourse with a person in the lowest condition of

life, and of great grossness and indecency in other respects. At the same time, he could not forget that her conduct might have been of a very different complexion, had she been placed in different circumstances with reference to the Sovereign. He could not forget the unfortunate situation in which her Majesty was at a former period placed in this country. It was not probable that, under any circumstances, her Majesty would remain in this country, where she could not expect to have very agreeable or comfortable society; and therefore the rejection of the Bill would not operate injuriously in that respect. Being decidedly hostile to the measure, and being persuaded that it would be rejected in some stage or other, he thought the sooner it was got rid of the better, and should therefore vote against the second reading.

Lord Grantham, although he was not convinced of the Queen's innocence, would oppose the Bill.

The Earls of Blessington and Gosford also opposed it.

The Duke of Atholl spoke in favour of the Bill.

The Duke of Somerset opposed it.

Lord Grenville spoke at great length in favour of the Bill-In the view which he took of all the various parts of the case, he thought it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. In coming to this conclusion, he did not exclude the expediency of the measure from his view, nor did he overlook the present alarming state of the country; but all the eloquent appeals which he had heard had not produced in his mind the conviction that there would be less public mischief occasioned that the public evil which was now hanging over the country was more likely to be averted by the sudden termination of the present proceedings, than by the second reading of this Bill. (Hear.)

The Earl of Rosslyn argued against the Bill. At one time it was a Bill of Relief to the Sovereign, at another it was a State proceeding, in which the State was the prosecutor that led him to consider the character of the Queen as connected with the country. As Queen Consort she was entitled to certain privileges and to certain protection, which it was the object of the Bill to withdraw from her-that was to be done at the instance of the State. Now, he wished to know whether the State was entitled to do that?-What was the conduct of the State towards her Majesty? Was she to be treated as the wife of the State? If so, were they to forget the acts of the State ?-the encouragement that had been given to the Queen by the State ?-the Address of the House of Commons to her Majesty, condemning the proceeding against her as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the

« НазадПродовжити »