Sitting of 10 November 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the third reading of the bill,
The Earl of Morleysaid, that, having been one of those who thought that the course of events subsequently to the late arrival of her majesty in this country, had rendered an inquiry into her conduct absolutely necessary—having thought that it was equally necessary the inquiry should be of the nature which it afterwards had been—having thought then, as now, that his noble friends who were charged with his majesty's administration, were actuated only by an imperative sense of duty in bringing the subject before parliament, and having concurred in their measures respecting this inquiry, up to the stage

1733
of the second reading of the bill, he felt himself bound to state the reasons which prevented him from voting with the majority on Monday last, and which continued to influence him in rejecting the third reading of the bill. His chief reason was, that the charge of adultery set forth in the preamble was not fully substantiated by proof. No man ought to vote for this bill who did not think the charge clearly: established against her majesty. He farther thought, that the provisions of the bill, if not of a revolutionary complexion, were at least anti-monarchical in their form. The charge set forth in the bill was spread over so long a period as six years; and it appeared to him particularly singular that no one specific act of adultery was proved to have been committed on any given day, throughout the long period comprehended within the sphere of the charge. Inferences had been, he admitted, and some of them of a very strong nature, drawn from particular parts of the Queen's conduct, but none of them, in his mind, amounted to proof. The distinction which he drew I from the length of time embraced by the charge was this—that in proportion as the bill was extended in point of time, so in the same proponion ought the proof of particular acts to be direct and conclusive; and for this plain reason, that the length of time facilitated the opportunities of proof, and multiplied their amount. He would state shortly his reasons for believing that the act of adultery had not been committed on board the polacre. In the first place, it was proved, that it was the custom of the eastern countries to repose without undressing; and thus it appeared it was that the Queen and Bergami had slept under the tent or awning on board the vessel. In the next place, there was a constant communication open between the tent and the cabins below. Was it possible that her royal highness could be other than aware that her motions were likely to be watched? Would she then have suffered this communication to remain open, had a criminal intercourse been carried on between her and Bergami? During the whole night the tent was surrounded by eleven or twelve persons. Now, when it was considered how many circumstances might have caused some of those persons to come into the tent, it appeared to him that it was very unlikely that the act of adultery was committed in that situation. It was certain that the
1734
adultery had not been proved. He then argued, that what had been proved antecedently to her royal highness going on board the polacre, did not establish the adultery.
Lord Somerssaid, that nothing would give him more satisfaction than to be able to say that in his judgment the bill ought not to pass. Sorry he was that a conviction directly the contrary was decidedly fixed in his mind. He thought it nearly impossible to doubt that the guilt of her majesty had been established, when a considerable majority of their lordships had voted for the second reading of the bill, and when many of those peers who decided against its being read a second time, had expressed strong suspicions of her majesty's conduct, while several of them had positively declared their conviction that she was guilty. It appeared to him, that several points were to be considered in deciding on this case. The first point to be considered was the positive proofs which they had of the Queen's guilt. It had been argued, that the character of the persons who had given evidence at the bar, was such as to deny them all claim to credit, and that their testimony was shown to be such, that it must be regarded as destructive to the whole charge. To him it appeared, that the direct reverse of all this had turned out to be the fact. The evidence of Barbara Kress was such, that a noble lord opposed to this measure had given it as his opinion, that she was a fair and ingenuous witness; but he had argued that she might have been mistaken. He must contend, that on every fair consideration of evidence, the testimony of Kress could not be invalidated. But after all the inquiries that had been made with respect to her character, not a single act had been proved against her. The noble lord having stated the case of Carlsruhe, and from the Minutes the Evidence given on this subject, declared that it appeared to him as strong as any evidence could be, that adultery had been committed. Bergami was seen in bed, with his arm round the neck of the princess, who was sitting on the bed, and the next day a cloak worn by her royal highness was found in the bed. What could be stronger than this? His understanding might be weak, but certainly such a fact carried conviction to his mind. He then noticed the evidence given by Kress, with respect to the stains which she had

1735
observed, and commented on the natural way in which her testimony had been given. The facts she had stated, he thought, under all the circumstances of the case, supplied positive proof that the adultery had been committed. His lordship here alluded to several of the leading features of the case, and begged to say, that his conduct had been wholly misrepresented by. The Morning Chronicle. "That paper had asserted, that he was present during the whole of the case for the bill, and absent during all the Queen's case. Now, the only periods in the progress of the case during which he was absent were, during the evidence of Hownam and Flinn, and during the summing up of Mr. Denman, and the solicitor-general's reply. He now came to that part of the case which showed that Bergami, the courier, dined at the same table with the princess, attired in that livery in which he had waited behind her chair. If any thing could have been wanting to satisfy any reasonable mind of the nature of the connexion which was subsisting between him and the princess, this proof was decisive of her guilt. His lordship also remarked on the extraordinary conduct of lady Charlotte Lindsay, in affecting not to recollect whether she had or had not used expressions with respect to the princess, detracting from her character as a modest and virtuous woman. He could not conceive how that lady should be thus deficient in recollection as to a point of such infinite importance on a question like the present. His lordship then concluded by declaring on his conscience that he felt himself called upon to vote for the bill.
Earl Fortescuesaid:—My lords; I have abstained from offering myself to your lordships in the earlier stages of this business, in the persuasion that my sentiments were delivered by my noble friends who sit near me, with much more satisfaction to myself, and with much greater impression on the House, than they would have been expressed by me. If, however, I could mistrust my own judgment in this matter, it would be because it differs from that of a noble person (lord Grenville), with whom I am not more connected by the ties of relationship, than by habits of mutual confidence, and by entire unity of sentiment. I reflect with pride and satisfaction that this is the first time that I have differed from him on any subject of great public
1736
importance, and I hope and trust, that in the course of political events it will be the last. My lords, I will frankly own that I first met the discussion of this subject, with a strong prepossession upon my mind against the manner in which it was brought before us. A bill of pains and penalties cannot, in my opinion, be justified by any motives short of extreme and imminent danger to the state, or by the apprehension of a disputed succession to the Crown, which perhaps may be considered as the greatest of all emergencies, and certainly no case within that description has been made out. Nevertheless, my lords, as the matter of accusation was brought to us in this shape, I was prepared to vote for the passing of the bill, if the charges which it contains had been proved by uncontroverted and unsuspected evidence; but so far from this character applying to the testimony that we have heard in support of these allegations, the greatest part of it has been entirely blown out of court. I am ready to concur with the noble lord who spoke last, at least so far as to admit that the sudden elevation of Bergami, with all the circumstances that attended it, affords strong ground of presumption, so much so, that if any fact had been raised upon it, and proved in the manner in which I have already insisted, it would have led my mind to the conclusion of an improper intercourse having subsisted even to the extent of adultery; but I maintain that no such matter has been proved, and we are not warranted, whether in our judicial or legislative capacity, in passing a bill of this nature upon bare presumption. My, lords, I wish to say a few words on the subject of the vote which I gave in the committee. We had been told (probably with the view of composing the scruples which had been entertained and professed by some noble lords about voting for the bill) that some material alterations would be made in the committee, and we were given to understand that these alterations were of a mitigatory nature, so made as to shape the bill to the remnant of the charges which, in the opinion of some of your lordships, had not been wholly disproved. I looked in vain for these mitigations in the preamble, which remains just as it was, with the single erasure of the monosyllable the, and the substitution of Bartolomeo for Bartolomo. How far those amendments have met the wishes or expectations of any noble lords, I do

1737
not pretend to say; for my own part, I never entertained any wishes or scruples on the subject, and therefore was liable to no disappointment. Not finding, however, any mitigation in the preamble, I looked for it in the penal clauses, and perhaps there is the point in which some noble lords have found their satisfaction. But to my mind the withdrawing the divorce clause would have been an aggravation of punishment, and in that view I gave my vote for its being retained. I will not, however disguise that I had a further motive (which has been frankly avowed by my noble friend, lord Grey), that it might indirectly operate the effect of throwing out the bill. My lords, by withdrawing this clause, you would have left the Queen subject to all the obligations and inconveniences which are attached to the matrimonial state without any of the comforts and advantages which are derived from it, for it is a matter of universal notoriety, that the affections which a wife has a right to claim from her husband, as well as his protection have been withdrawn from her for more than twenty years; therefore, a release from such a state of matrimony is in my view of the case, an indulgence which she has a right to expect at your lordships hands. My lords, I must now be permitted to say, that I have seen, with pain and sorrow, the manner in which royal personages have been exhibited to the public view; certainly, to say the least of it, not with the effect of cherishing that respect in which they ought to be held. We all know, that persons in those elevated situations are not exempt from the frailties and imperfections which are in the common condition of mortality; examples have not been wanting of great and flagrant deviations from the moral course in persons of this high description; but it has been, and properly been, the policy of other countries to throw a thick veil over their immoralities, so as to keep them from the public view. If this practice has obtained in countries subject to arbitrary power, by how much thicker a veil should they be shaded in a limited and constitutional monarchy, where the want of power in the sovereign is to be supplied by the outward drapery with which the throne is surrounded, and, above all, by public opinion. My lords, the mischief which has been done in the progress of this bill is great, but still I hope it may not be irreparable. It remains for us who are the hereditary counsellors of
1738
the Crown, to unite our efforts on both sides of the House (for I must consider that distinction to have found its way into this as into other political questions), to join with all the other orders of the state as far as our influence extends, to restore the person and character of the sovereign, to that level on which, in the right view of the constitution it ought, to stand, and in my opinion the first step towards attaining this end, will be, the rejection of the present bill.
The Duke of Bedfordsaid, he must express his decided dissent from a measure, which was, in his opinion, "derogatory from the honour of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the nation." He had refrained from giving any vote upon the question when the bill was in a committee, because he felt that he could not conscientiously vote for it, without admitting that the Queen had been guilty of adultery and of indecency, and thereby dishonouring both her majesty and the King. It was with extreme astonishment, however, that he saw his majesty's ministers opposing the divorce clause, thus consenting to the emasculation of their own measure, and depriving it of that feature which alone could indicate their own belief in the premises. He confessed that he was quite surprised to hear the noble earl at the head of the treasury commenting upon that evidence and those premises in the way he had done, assuming as facts all that the pure, the modest, and the immaculate Demont, had been pleased to assert upon her examination. [Some signs of dissent were manifested among the lords on the opposite benches.] He understood the noble earl to argue as if he implicitly relied upon her testimony. The noble baron on the cross-bench had followed on the same side; but, if the noble lord would refer to the evidence of Dr. Holland, be would find that it afforded but the solitary confirmation of the fact relative to her royal highness's visit to the theatre St. Carlos. There was another circumstance upon which the noble earl had commented with peculiar severity; namely, that her royal highness had been guilty of the most unbecoming condescension in appearing at masquerades; on one occasion as an Automaton, and on another as the Genius of History. Now, really, in treating the subject in this manner, the noble earl appeared to know very little what was the custom of foreign courts, where it was

1739
the usage with persons in high and superior situations in society to partake of these amusements, and to assume such characters as they chose. Upon the policy of such a measure as the present, he would observe, that there were, as had been stated by a noble earl, certain circumstances in the private history of most princes and princesses, which made it highly necessary that the veil should never too rashly be withdrawn. Let their lordships look at the private life of the great Elizabeth herself; and then he would ask them, supposing that she had been surrounded by spies, and watched by corrupted domestics, what would have become of the boasted glories of the character and reign of that illustrious princess? Their lordships could not fail to have seen with amazement, that, while the charge against her majesty in this case was for a course of criminal and improper conduct during six years, from 1817 to the present year, not a shadow of evidence had been brought to prove the Queen's guilt. In answer to repeated inquiries, they had been told that the state was the prosecutor. It was necessary to know by whom the state was represented; and then they were informed that the King in his constitutional capacity, was the prosecutor. The King not appearing in this case, another inquiry still remained. What he wanted to know was this—Who is the ostensible prosecutor? Why, they found that the confidential servants of the Crown were the prosecutors; yet were their lordships told that there was nothing anomalous in the case! Good God! To his imperfect understanding there appeared to be nothing but anomalies. He would, however, say, that if he were sitting in that House in his judicial capacity and he was asked whether he believed the Queen to be guilty or not guilty of the charges imputed to her, he should answer most conscientious, and, from the bottom of his heart, "Not Guilty, upon my honour." He should do so the more unhesitatingly, because he had come to this inquiry with strong prejudices against the Queen.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it did appear to him, he must confess, to be totally impossible, that any man should vote for a second reading of this bill, who did not feel himself entirely convinced of the guilt of the Queen. It was not, in that stage of the proceeding, his duty to enter into any consideration of the policy of what might be to be done, should
1740
their lordships think her guilty. He took the liberty to point out to their lordships that it would be quite competent for them, provided they felt confident that the whole or part of the charges were substantiated in evidence, to alter the preamble of this bill, so as to assert or deny, first, every thing which they believed to be true, and which might be retained; and then every thing which was not made out upon legal evidence; and this they might leave out. Returning for a moment to the divorce clause—a majority of the House had voted in its support; but he would suggest to noble lords that it might be a question whether parties should be separated by a divorce "a mensa et thoro," or by a divorce only "pro salute animi" in which latter case the individual, however, may not be able to prove the adultery. The plain question here, however, was, what was just; his own opinion being that they could not act justly or fairly in voting for the bill, if they did not do so from a conviction of her majesty's guilt. Your lordships heard the other day a very able argument on the way in which judges estimated circumstantial evidence. I do not, however, see that there was much analogy between the cases cited by the noble lord (Grenville) and the present; there the circumstances all bear on one point; that the first proof must be that the crime was committed, that a person had been murdered; and it is by circumstantial evidence that the crime is brought home to the guilty individual. I recollect a case in which a man was found dead on the highway, and shot through the head; the wadding of the pistol was found clotted in the hair of the deceased; and, on the head being washed, a piece of paper was found unconsumed. This fragment was also washed, and, proved to be part of a ballad, the remainder of which was found in the pocket of another person, who was apprehended on suspicion of being the murderer. Here was strong proof. In cases of circumstantial evidence, there are antecedent facts from which inferences may be drawn. But if your lordships will only decide cases of adultery on the positive fact having been proved, it is necessary to avow such a determination, and to declare that all the divorces hither to obtained have been wrong. Much will always depend on antecedent circumstances. Suppose a lady and gentleman going into a room and locking the door, which is afterwards

1741
forced, and they are discovered preparing to commit adultery, this would be no; evidence of the fact; but if, a few days afterwards, the same parties lock themselves in a room for some hours, or be found for five weeks sleeping in the same apartment, would any one say that their preparing for committing the act was not a strong antecedent proof that it was afterwards committed. Laying aside the evidence of Majoochi and Demont, and looking at the uncontradicted evidence in support of the case, and the evidence for the defence which afforded in this as strong a legal presumption of guilt as the evidence for the bill itself—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 the circumstances, I think it would be difficult for any man to lay his hand on his heart, and say "Not Guilty."
The Bishop of Chestersaid, he had given his vote to the second reading of this bill upon the full but painful conviction that her majesty was guilty. As it appeared to his judgment, the crime of adultery could be proved by circumstantial evidence alone; and it also appeared to him, that in the present case, that evidence had been accumulated in a most convincing manner. If, as she solemnly protested in the name of her Maker, she were innocent, never in the annals of the world was innocence accompanied with such corroborating circumstances of guilt. He had voted against the divorce clause, because he thought it contrary to the religious precepts expounded by the Divine Teacher of Christianity. These were the motives which induced him to vote as he had done; and he wished them to be understood, in order to repel the insinuation that those who voted against the divorce clause were degrading the King. So far was this reflection unmerited on his part, that he had heard with surprise and abhorrence the abuse which had been made of the sacred name of their sovereign. One noble earl had said, that he would have thrown the Liturgy in his face. And it was with shame and horror he had heard a monarch, whose regency would bear a triumphant comparison with the proudest period of our history, compared with the most sanguinary and merciless monster that ever degraded the human form—the eternally execrated despot of Imperial Rome. Having voted for the second read-
1742
ing of the bill, because in his conscience he believed the Queen guilty, and having opposed the divorce clause, because it was in opposition to that ministry whose imperfect 'servant he was, he could not, now the clause was retained, consistently vote for the third reading of the bill, and he should therefore withdraw without voting one way or the other.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, that as an allusion had been made to an expression of his, by the right rev. prelate, he begged permission to explain the phrase he had made use of. It was perfectly true, that he had used the words imputed to him; but he had done so in this manner. A rumour had prevailed—whether true or not he at the time had said he could not tell—that the supporters of ministers had given out that his majesty was the main cause of this unfortunate question being agitated, notwithstanding the decided voice of the country; and that it was the King himself who desired the archbishop to omit her majesty's name in the Liturgy. He had said at the time that he thought this rumour extremely discreditable to ministers; and, having thus stated his opinion of it, he certainly did declare, that were he in the situation of the archbishop, feeling, as he did, the evil which the erasure of the Queen's name was likely to entail upon the country, he should, sooner than strike it out from the Liturgy, have thrown the Prayer-book in his majesty's face; had he been even pressed by him so to do, which he could not believe. And he had also said, that under such circumstances, sooner than remain one of his majesty's administration, he would have trampled upon the seals of office. Such were his sentiments upon the measures; and he implored the House to consider the situation in which it would be placed, if, in decided opposition to the general sense of the country, they pressed this bill with such a majority for its second reading as 28, in a House of 223 members present. That majority could never be supposed as giving the real concurrence of the House to a bill of this nature; and unless it had the general concurrence of the House, the minister had said at the commencement of the business he thought it ought not to be pressed. The more he thought of the matter, the more decided was his impression of its obnoxious character.
Lord Erskineshould content himself with saying, notwithstanding his great re-

1743
spect for the learning of his noble friend on the woolsack, that he continued of the opinion he had formerly given on the subject of the evidence, declaring that, if it were the last word he had to utter in this world, he should pronounce it to be wholly insufficient to support the charge; nor could he have supported it in any court where justice was duly administered. As to the Queen being guilty on the testimony of her own witnesses, he denied it altogether, for the reasons he had already given.
The Duke of Graftonsaid, that upon looking into the whole of the evidence, he must pronounce a verdict of Not Guilt.
The Marquis of Huntleysaid, that he was satisfied of the guilt of her majesty, and should therefore vote for the third reading of the bill. The evidence of Hownam alone, was sufficient to convince him of that, and he was only surprised how the noble lords opposite could entertain a contrary opinion on the subject; and he hoped that, considering the sincerity they evinced of her majesty's innocence, they would add to it by letting their wives and daughters associate with the Queen, He was anxious not to give a silent vote upon this occasion, in consequence of the threats held out by the counsel at the bar.
The Marquis of Donegalsaid, that he had closely attended throughout the whole of these proceedings. In his opinion the evidence of Majoochi and Demont, which bore the burden of the proof in this case, was inconsistent. His clear and conscientious vote was therefore against the bill.
The Bishop of Gloucesterstated, that he could not concur in the divorce clause in this bill, which, if not hostile to, was certainly inconsistent with, the spirit and tenor of the Christian morality and law. It did appear to him inconsistent with the standing order of the House on other occasions, and not according to impartial justice between the parties. This being his conscientious feeling, regarding the Divorce clause, he was compelled to vote against the third reading of the bill.
Lord Alvanleyexpressed his determination to oppose the third reading of the bill.
Lord Ellenborough,in voting against the bill, could not help making this observation:—that, among the strange peculiarities of this case, was this: that the strongest evidence of her majesty's guilt was derived from her own witnesses.
The Earl of Darnleyimplored those noble lords, whose opinions were yet wavering as to the expediency and policy of this bill, to step forward in this its last stage, and stay a measure so pregnant with such disastrous consequences.
The House then divided on the question, "That the Bill be now read a third time. "The numbers were:—

Contents

108

Not-contents

99

Majority

9

list of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents

CONTENTS.

Dukes of York

Aylesbury

Clarence

Bathurst

Archbishop of Canterbury.

Chatham

Harcourt

Lord Chancellor

Warwick

Dukes Wellington

Graham (Montrose)

Northumberland

Pomfret

Newcastle

Macclesfield

Rutland

Balcarras

Beaufort

Home

Marqs. Conyngham

Coventry

Anglesey

Rochford

Camden

Abingdon

Northampton

Earls Shaftesbury

Exeter

Cardigan

Headfort

Winchilsea

Cornwallis

Bridgewater

Buckingham

Viscounts Exmouth

Lothian

Lake

Queensberry

Sidmouth

Winchester

Melville

Earls St. Germains

Curzon

Whitworth

Sydney

Verulam

Hereford

Cathcart

Bishops Cork

Mulgrave

Landaff

Orford

Peterborough

Manvers

Ross

Ely

Westmoreland, C. P. S.

St. David's

Worcester

Nelson

St. Asaph

Powis

London

Limerick

Lords Harris

Donoughmore

Ross (Glasgow)

Belmore

Mayo

Meldrum (Aboyne)

Longford

Mount-Cashel

Hill

Kingston

Combermere

Liverpool

Hopetown

Digby

Manners

Mount-Edge-combe.

Ailsa (Cassilis)

Lauderdale

Strange (Athol)

Sheffield

Abergavenny

Redesdale

1745

St. Helen's

Grenville

Northwick

Suffield

Bolton

Montagu

Carrington

Gordon (Huntly)

De Dunstanville

Somers

Rous

Rodney

Saltersford (Courtown)

Middleton

Napier

Stewart (Galloway)

Colville

Gray

Stuart (Moray)

Saltoun

Douglas (Morton)

Forbes

NOT-CONTENTS.

Duke of Gloucester

Viscounts Granville

Archbishops Tuam

Anson

York

Duncan

Dukes Portland

Hood

Brandon (Hamilton)

Torrington

Falmouth

Devonshire

Bolingbroke

Bedford

Grafton

Bishop of Gloucester

Richmond

Lords Breadalbane

Somerset

Erskine

Leinster

Arden

Marquises Bath

Ellenborough

Stafford

Alvanley

Lansdown

Loftus (Ely)

Earls Blesington

Fitzgibbon (Clare)

Bradford

Morley

Bayning

Minto

Gwydir

Grey

Calthorpe

Gosford

Downey (Downe)

Romney

Rosslyn

Yarborough

Caledon

Dundas

Enniskillen

Selsey

Farnham

Mendip (Clifden)

Carrick

Carnarvon

Auckland

Mansfield

Gage

Fortescue

Fisherwick (Donegall)

Grosvenor

Hilsborough (Marquis of Downshire.)

Amherst

Kenyon

Sherborne

Delawar

Berwick

Ilchester

Ashburton

Egremont

Bagot

Fitzwilliam

Walsingham

Portsmouth

Dynevor

Stanhope

Hawke

Cowper

Sundridge (Argyle)

Dartmouth

Oxford

Ducie

Roseberry

Holland

Jersey

Grantham

Albemarle

Ponsonby (Besbqrough)

Essex

Thanet

King

Denbigh

Belhaven

Suffolk

Clifton (Darnley)

Derby

1746

Say & Sele

Dacre

Howard of Effingham

Audley

De Clifford

De la Zouch

Foley.

Clinton

During the exclusion of strangers:—
Lord Dacreobserved, that he had been entrusted with a petition from her majesty, praying to be heard by counsel against the passing of the bill.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he apprehended such a course would be rendered unnecessary by what he was about to state. He could not be 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; Had the third reading been carried by as considerable a number of peers as the second had been, he and his noble colleagues would have felt it their duty to persevere in the bill, and to send it down to the other branch of the legislature. In the present state of the country, however, and with the division of sentiment so nearly balanced, just evinced by their lordships, they had come to the determination not to proceed further with it. It was his intention, accordingly, to move "That the further consideration of the bill be adjourned to this day six months."
Earl Greycomplained of the whole course which ministers had pursued with regard to the bill, which, after the declaration of the noble earl, could scarcely be said to be before the House, but which was still before the country, and would long live in its memory. He charged the servants of the Crown with the grossest neglect of duty, in the first instance, it listening only to ex-parte evidence, and giving a willing credence to the most exaggerated and unfounded calumnies. They had thus for many months agitated the nation—they had produced 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, and had given a shock to the morals of society by the promulgation of the detestable and disgusting evidence, in the hearing of which, the House had been so long occupied. The noble earl also reprobated, in the severest terms, the conduct of the Milan commissioners, who having been appointed, not to investigate

1747
truth, but to obtain testimony of guilt, had found in this country but too great an inclination to put faith in all the stories that their agents and witnesses might invent against the honour and reputation of the Queen of Great 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 fifty days—after all the injury that it was possible to do the Queen had been accomplished—the bill was abandoned, not without reason, but assuredly without apology. He would assure the noble lords on the other side, that the people would not be I satisfied with the mere withdrawing of the; measure, but would demand a strict inquiry into its foundation and origin.
Lord Erskinesaid:—I see the fate of this odious measure consummated, I heartily rejoice at this event. My lords, I am an old man; and my life, whether it has been for good or for evil, has been passed under the sacred rule of the law. In this moment I feel my strength renovated by that rule being restored. The accursed charge wherewithal we had been menaced has passed over our heads. There is an end of that horrid and portentous excrescence of a new law, retrospective, iniquitous, and oppressive; and the constitution and scheme of our polity is once more safe. My heart is too full of the escape we have just had to let me do more than praise the blessings of the system we have regained; but I cannot praise them adequately myself, and I, therefore, prefer expressing my own sentiments in the fine language of one of the most eloquent authors of any age, Hooker, who thus speaks in his great work on Ecclesiastical Polity:—"Of Law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world: all things in heaven and earth do her homage; the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power. Both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform concert, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy."
The Duke of Montrosedeclared, in the most solemn manner, that he had given his vote for the third reading of the bill on the clearest and most conscientious conviction of the Queen's guilt.
The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned to the 23rd instant.
PROTESTS AGAINST ADJOURNING THE FURTHER CONSIDER ATION OF THE BILL.]
The following Protests were entered on the Journals:
I.
Adhuc 10 Die Novembris, 1820.
Moved, That the further consideration of the bill be adjourned to this day six months; which being objected, the question was put thereupon. It was resolved in the affirmative.
"Dissentient,
"Because no sufficient ground appears for the abandonment of the bill, founded on the charges against her majesty the Queen, which had undergone the most solemn and accurate investigation: charges in which the morality of the country was deeply interested, and on which all the Peers spiritual and temporal, who delivered their opinions, had, with very few exceptions, declared their conviction of her guilt.
"Because the abandonment of the bill, after the most profligate criminality had been substantiated by the strongest moral and legal evidence, is a measure calculated to bring into contempt, not only the character of our highest court of judicature, but that of the nation itself.
"Because we cannot observe, but with the deepest concern, extreme want of consideration for the sovereign in the dereliction of proceedings so necessarily brought on, by which a wife declared by the House of Peers to have been long guilty of an adulterous intercourse with a menial servant, and of conduct the most depraved, is to remain his Queen-consort, thus degrading the dignity of the Crown, and embarrassing the country with far greater difficulties than those which seem to have induced his majesty's government to relinquish the prosecution of the bill.
(Signed) SHEFFIELD.
NORTHUMBERLAND.
LOTHIAN.
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence.)
AYLESBURY."
II.
Adhuc, 10 Die Novembris, 1820.
"Dissentient,
"Because, that in a case of this nature, in which this House appears to us by its resolution to read the bill a second time, by its proceedings in the committee upon the bill and the report, and by its resolution to read the bill a third time, to have

1749
strongly manifested that, in the judgment of a majority of this House, the guilt imputed in the preamble of the bill had been clearly proved, we think that considerations affecting the justice and honour of the House, made it fit that the bill should pass.
"Because this appears to us to have been the more fit in a case in which so many peers, who voted against the third reading of the bill, had declared their conviction that the guilt imputed had been proved.
"Because we also think that the House ought not, in considering whether the bill should pass, after its having been read a third time, to have been influenced by any regard to what might take place in an inquiry in the other House of Parliament as was suggested in the course of our debates, save only that we deem it to have been just, that the party accused should have had an opportunity of calling for the judgment of both Houses, when this House, proceeding by a bill of Pains and Penalties, had expressed in its resolutions a judgment unfavourable to that party.
"Because we cannot but apprehend that the resolution to adjourn the further consideration of the bill will lead to great misapprehension as to the real opinion of the majority of the peers of this House as it is to be collected from the antecedent proceedings, properly understood with reference to the question upon the guilt imputed to the party accused in the preamble of the bill.
(Signed) SHAFTESBURY.
BRIDGEWATER.
VERULAM.
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence.)"
III.
"Dissentient,
"Because it has been clearly established by undeniable evidence, and confirmed by the votes and declarations of a great majority of the House of Peers, that the princess of Wales (now Queen) did commit adultery with a foreigner, and because we know of no other tribunal where this crime against the state, and against society, can be punished, or the repetition of the offence be prevented.
"Because the failure of this bill, unaccompanied by any other legislative or
1750
judicial proceeding, must encourage the commission of crime, and leave a great stain upon the honour of the throne, and the morals of the present generation. (Signed) HARRIS.
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence)."
IV.
"Dissentient,
"Because the guilt of her majesty the Queen having, after the fullest investigation and consideration of the evidence adduced for and against her majesty, been made out and established to the entire satisfaction of my honour and conscience, and the bill of Pains and Penalties having in the most solemn and deliberate manner, passed through its different stages, and received the sanction of this House to the third reading, I cannot allow of its abandonment at this period of the sedulous and exemplary attendance and labours of this House, without recording my protest against a measure which involves a dereliction of the sacred duty of administering justice by this House, and which suffers the most abandoned and licentious con duct to remain, if not triumphant, at least unpunished, to the disgrace of our country, in derogation of the honour and dignity of this House, and which tends to lower the first tribunal in the world in the estimation of this nation, of Europe, and of posterity. (Signed)
Powis.
(Signed) WILLIAM
(Duke of Clarence.)"
PROROGATION.] NOV. 23. The Speaker having entered the House, Mt. Denman rose and said, that he had a message to present from her majesty. At this moment the deputy usher of the Black Rod tapped at the door, and immediately entered. About fifty members rose in their seats, and the general cry was—"Mr. Denman, Mr. Denman!" "Withdraw, withdraw!" The deputy usher stated, that the lords commissioners desired the immediate attendance of the House in the House of Peers. Cries of "Shame!" were reiterated as the Speaker advanced towards the door. Mr. Bennet said, that this affair was a scandal to the country. The Speaker proceeded to the House of Lords, where the Lord Chancellor declared the Parliament to be prorogued to the 23rd of January 1821.