Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Alphabetical list of witnesses...
 September, 1820
 October, 1820
 November, 1820
 Index of names - House of...
 Index of names - House of...

Group Title: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Title: The parliamentary debates
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073533/00003
 Material Information
Title: The parliamentary debates
Uniform Title: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Physical Description: 20 v. : ; 25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Great Britain -- Parliament
Hansard, T. C ( Thomas Curson ), 1776-1833
Publisher: Published under the superintendence of T.C. Hansard
Place of Publication: London
Publication Date: 1820-1829
Subject: Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Great Britain -- 1820-1830   ( lcsh )
Dates or Sequential Designation: New ser., v. 1 (1820)-v. 20 (1829).
Numbering Peculiarities: Covers Mar. 1820-Feb./Mar. 1829.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073533
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07655703
lccn - sn 85062629
 Related Items
Preceded by: Parliamentary debates for the year 1803 to the present time
Succeeded by: Hansard's parliamentary debates

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
        Table of Contents 3
        Table of Contents 4
        Table of Contents 5
        Table of Contents 6
        Table of Contents 7
        Table of Contents 8
        Table of Contents 9
    Alphabetical list of witnesses for and against the bill
        Page ii
    September, 1820
        Page 1-2
        House of Lords - Friday, September 8
            Page 1-2
            Page 3-4
            Page 5-6
            Page 7-8
            Page 9-10
            Page 11-12
            Page 13-14
            Page 15-16
            Page 17-18
            Page 19-20
            Page 21-22
            Page 23-24
            Page 25-26
            Page 27-28
            Page 29-30
            Page 31-32
            Page 33-34
            Page 35-36
            Page 37-38
            Page 39-40
        House of Lords - Saturday, September 9
            Page 41-42
            Page 43-44
            Page 45-46
            Page 47-48
        House of Commons - Monday, September 18
            Page 49-50
            Page 51-52
            Page 53-54
            Page 55-56
            Page 57-58
            Page 59-60
            Page 61-62
            Page 63-64
            Page 65-66
            Page 67-68
            Page 69-70
            Page 71-72
            Page 73-74
            Page 75-76
            Page 77-78
            Page 79-80
            Page 81-82
            Page 83-84
            Page 85-86
            Page 87-88
            Page 89-90
            Page 91-92
            Page 93-94
            Page 95-96
            Page 97-98
            Page 99-100
            Page 101-102
            Page 103-104
            Page 105-106
    October, 1820
        Page 107-108
        House of Lords - Tuesday, October 3
            Page 107-108
            Page 109-110
            Page 111-112
            Page 113-114
            Page 115-116
            Page 117-118
            Page 119-120
            Page 121-122
            Page 123-124
            Page 125-126
            Page 127-128
            Page 129-130
            Page 131-132
            Page 133-134
            Page 135-136
            Page 137-138
            Page 139-140
            Page 141-142
            Page 143-144
            Page 145-146
            Page 147-148
            Page 149-150
            Page 151-152
            Page 153-154
            Page 155-156
            Page 157-158
            Page 159-160
            Page 161-162
            Page 163-164
            Page 165-166
            Page 167-168
            Page 169-170
            Page 171-172
            Page 173-174
            Page 175-176
        House of Lords - Wednesday, October 4
            Page 177-178
            Page 179-180
            Page 181-182
            Page 183-184
            Page 185-186
            Page 187-188
            Page 189-190
            Page 191-192
            Page 193-194
            Page 195-196
            Page 197-198
            Page 199-200
            Page 201-202
            Page 203-204
            Page 205-206
            Page 207-208
            Page 209-210
            Page 211-212
            Page 213-214
            Page 215-216
            Page 217-218
            Page 219-220
            Page 221-222
            Page 223-224
            Page 225-226
            Page 227-228
            Page 229-230
            Page 231-232
            Page 233-234
            Page 235-236
            Page 237-238
            Page 239-240
            Page 241-242
            Page 243-244
            Page 245-246
            Page 247-248
            Page 249-250
            Page 251-252
            Page 253-254
        House of Lords - Thursday, October 5
            Page 255-256
            Page 257-258
            Page 259-260
            Page 261-262
            Page 263-264
            Page 265-266
            Page 267-268
            Page 269-270
            Page 271-272
            Page 273-274
            Page 275-276
            Page 277-278
            Page 279-280
            Page 281-282
            Page 283-284
            Page 285-286
            Page 287-288
            Page 289-290
            Page 291-292
            Page 293-294
            Page 295-296
            Page 297-298
            Page 299-300
            Page 301-302
            Page 303-304
            Page 305-306
            Page 307-308
            Page 309-310
            Page 311-312
            Page 313-314
            Page 315-316
        House of Lords - Friday, October 6
            Page 317-318
            Page 319-320
            Page 321-322
            Page 323-324
            Page 325-326
            Page 327-328
            Page 329-330
            Page 331-332
            Page 333-334
            Page 335-336
            Page 337-338
            Page 339-340
            Page 341-342
            Page 343-344
            Page 345-346
            Page 347-348
            Page 349-350
            Page 351-352
            Page 353-354
            Page 355-356
            Page 357-358
            Page 359-360
            Page 361-362
        House of Lords - Saturday, October 7
            Page 363-364
            Page 365-366
            Page 367-368
            Page 369-370
            Page 371-372
            Page 373-374
            Page 375-376
            Page 377-378
            Page 379-380
            Page 381-382
            Page 383-384
            Page 385-386
            Page 387-388
            Page 389-390
            Page 391-392
            Page 393-394
            Page 395-396
            Page 397-398
            Page 399-400
            Page 401-402
            Page 403-404
            Page 405-406
            Page 407-408
            Page 409-410
            Page 411-412
            Page 413-414
        House of Lords - Monday, October 9
            Page 415-416
            Page 417-418
            Page 419-420
            Page 421-422
            Page 423-424
            Page 425-426
            Page 427-428
            Page 429-430
            Page 431-432
            Page 433-434
            Page 435-436
            Page 437-438
            Page 439-440
            Page 441-442
            Page 443-444
            Page 445-446
            Page 447-448
            Page 449-450
            Page 451-452
            Page 453-454
        House of Lords - Tuesday, October 10
            Page 455-456
            Page 457-458
            Page 459-460
            Page 461-462
            Page 463-464
            Page 465-466
            Page 467-468
            Page 469-470
            Page 471-472
            Page 473-474
            Page 475-476
            Page 477-478
            Page 479-480
            Page 481-482
            Page 483-484
            Page 485-486
            Page 487-488
            Page 489-490
            Page 491-492
            Page 493-494
            Page 495-496
            Page 497-498
            Page 499-500
        House of Lords - Wednesday, October 11
            Page 501-502
            Page 503-504
            Page 505-506
            Page 507-508
            Page 509-510
            Page 511-512
            Page 513-514
            Page 515-516
            Page 517-518
            Page 519-520
            Page 521-522
            Page 523-524
            Page 525-526
            Page 527-528
            Page 529-530
            Page 531-532
            Page 533-534
            Page 535-536
            Page 537-538
            Page 539-540
        House of Lords - Thursday, October 12
            Page 541-542
            Page 543-544
            Page 545-546
            Page 547-548
            Page 549-550
            Page 551-552
            Page 553-554
            Page 555-556
            Page 557-558
            Page 559-560
            Page 561-562
            Page 563-564
            Page 565-566
            Page 567-568
            Page 568a
            Page 569-570
            Page 571-572
        House of Lords - Friday, October 13
            Page 573-574
            Page 575-576
            Page 577-578
            Page 579-580
            Page 581-582
            Page 583-584
            Page 585-586
            Page 587-588
            Page 589-590
            Page 591-592
            Page 593-594
            Page 595-596
            Page 597-598
            Page 599-600
            Page 601-602
            Page 603-604
            Page 605-606
            Page 607-608
            Page 609-610
            Page 611-612
            Page 613-614
            Page 615-616
            Page 617-618
            Page 619-620
            Page 621-622
            Page 623-624
        House of Lords - Saturday, October 14
            Page 625-626
            Page 627-628
            Page 629-630
            Page 631-632
            Page 633-634
            Page 635-636
            Page 637-638
            Page 639-640
            Page 641-642
            Page 643-644
            Page 645-646
            Page 647-648
            Page 649-650
            Page 651-652
            Page 653-654
            Page 655-656
            Page 657-658
            Page 659-660
            Page 661-662
            Page 663-664
            Page 665-666
            Page 667-668
            Page 669-670
        House of Lords - Monday, October 16
            Page 671-672
            Page 673-674
            Page 675-676
            Page 677-678
            Page 679-680
            Page 681-682
            Page 683-684
            Page 685-686
            Page 687-688
            Page 689-690
            Page 691-692
            Page 693-694
            Page 695-696
            Page 697-698
            Page 699-700
            Page 701-702
            Page 703-704
            Page 705-706
            Page 707-708
            Page 709-710
            Page 711-712
            Page 713-714
            Page 715-716
            Page 717-718
            Page 719-720
        House of Lords - Tuesday, October 17
            Page 721-722
            Page 723-724
            Page 725-726
            Page 727-728
            Page 729-730
            Page 731-732
            Page 733-734
            Page 735-736
            Page 737-738
            Page 739-740
            Page 741-742
            Page 743-744
            Page 745-746
        House of Commons - Tuesday, October 17
            Page 747-748
            Page 749-750
            Page 751-752
            Page 753-754
            Page 755-756
            Page 757-758
            Page 759-760
            Page 761-762
            Page 763-764
            Page 765-766
            Page 767-768
            Page 769-770
            Page 771-772
            Page 773-774
            Page 775-776
            Page 777-778
            Page 779-780
            Page 781-782
            Page 783-784
            Page 785-786
            Page 787-788
            Page 789-790
            Page 791-792
            Page 793-794
            Page 795-796
            Page 797-798
            Page 799-800
            Page 801-802
            Page 803-804
        House of Lords - Wednesday, October 18
            Page 805-806
            Page 807-808
            Page 809-810
            Page 811-812
            Page 813-814
            Page 815-816
            Page 817-818
            Page 819-820
            Page 821-822
            Page 823-824
            Page 825-826
            Page 827-828
            Page 829-830
            Page 831-832
            Page 833-834
            Page 835-836
            Page 837-838
            Page 839-840
        House of Lords - Thursday, October 19
            Page 841-842
            Page 843-844
            Page 845-846
            Page 847-848
            Page 849-850
            Page 851-852
            Page 853-854
            Page 855-856
            Page 857-858
            Page 859-860
            Page 861-862
            Page 863-864
            Page 865-866
            Page 867-868
            Page 869-870
            Page 871-872
            Page 873-874
            Page 875-876
            Page 877-878
            Page 879-880
            Page 881-882
        House of Lords - Friday, October 20
            Page 883-884
            Page 885-886
            Page 887-888
            Page 889-890
            Page 891-892
            Page 893-894
            Page 895-896
            Page 897-898
            Page 899-900
            Page 901-902
            Page 903-904
            Page 905-906
            Page 907-908
            Page 909-910
            Page 911-912
            Page 913-914
            Page 915-916
            Page 917-918
            Page 919-920
            Page 921-922
            Page 923-924
        House of Lords - Saturday, October 21
            Page 925-926
            Page 927-928
            Page 929-930
            Page 931-932
            Page 933-934
            Page 935-936
            Page 937-938
            Page 939-940
            Page 941-942
            Page 943-944
            Page 945-946
            Page 947-948
            Page 949-950
            Page 951-952
            Page 953-954
            Page 955-956
            Page 957-958
            Page 959-960
            Page 961-962
            Page 963-964
        House of Lords - Monday, October 23
            Page 965-966
            Page 967-968
            Page 969-970
            Page 971-972
            Page 973-974
            Page 975-976
            Page 977-978
            Page 979-980
            Page 981-982
            Page 983-984
            Page 985-986
            Page 987-988
            Page 989-990
            Page 991-992
            Page 993-994
            Page 995-996
            Page 997-998
            Page 999-1000
            Page 1001-1002
            Page 1003-1004
            Page 1005-1006
            Page 1007-1008
            Page 1009-1010
            Page 1011-1012
            Page 1013-1014
            Page 1015-1016
        House of Lords - Tuesday, October 24
            Page 1017-1018
            Page 1019-1020
            Page 1021-1022
            Page 1023-1024
            Page 1025-1026
            Page 1027-1028
            Page 1029-1030
            Page 1031-1032
            Page 1033-1034
            Page 1035-1036
            Page 1037-1038
            Page 1039-1040
            Page 1041-1042
            Page 1043-1044
            Page 1045-1046
            Page 1047-1048
            Page 1049-1050
            Page 1051-1052
            Page 1053-1054
            Page 1055-1056
            Page 1057-1058
            Page 1059-1060
            Page 1061-1062
            Page 1063-1064
            Page 1065-1066
            Page 1067-1068
            Page 1069-1070
            Page 1071-1072
            Page 1073-1074
            Page 1075-1076
            Page 1077-1078
            Page 1079-1080
            Page 1081-1082
            Page 1083-1084
            Page 1085-1086
            Page 1087-1088
            Page 1089-1090
            Page 1091-1092
            Page 1093-1094
        House of Lords - Wednesday, October 25
            Page 1095-1096
            Page 1097-1098
            Page 1099-1100
            Page 1101-1102
            Page 1103-1104
            Page 1105-1106
            Page 1107-1108
            Page 1109-1110
            Page 1111-1112
            Page 1113-1114
            Page 1115-1116
            Page 1117-1118
            Page 1119-1120
            Page 1121-1122
            Page 1123-1124
            Page 1125-1126
            Page 1127-1128
            Page 1129-1130
            Page 1131-1132
            Page 1133-1134
            Page 1135-1136
            Page 1137-1138
            Page 1139-1140
            Page 1141-1142
            Page 1143-1144
            Page 1145-1146
            Page 1147-1148
            Page 1149-1150
            Page 1151-1152
            Page 1153-1154
            Page 1155-1156
            Page 1157-1158
            Page 1159-1160
            Page 1161-1162
            Page 1163-1164
            Page 1165-1166
            Page 1167-1168
            Page 1169-1170
            Page 1171-1172
            Page 1173-1174
            Page 1175-1176
            Page 1177-1178
            Page 1179-1180
            Page 1181-1182
            Page 1183-1184
        House of Lords - Thursday, October 26
            Page 1185-1186
            Page 1187-1188
            Page 1189-1190
            Page 1191-1192
            Page 1193-1194
            Page 1195-1196
            Page 1197-1198
            Page 1199-1200
            Page 1201-1202
            Page 1203-1204
            Page 1205-1206
            Page 1207-1208
            Page 1209-1210
            Page 1211-1212
            Page 1213-1214
            Page 1215-1216
            Page 1217-1218
            Page 1219-1220
            Page 1221-1222
            Page 1223-1224
            Page 1225-1226
            Page 1227-1228
            Page 1229-1230
            Page 1231-1232
            Page 1233-1234
            Page 1235-1236
        House of Lords - Friday, October 27
            Page 1237-1238
            Page 1239-1240
            Page 1241-1242
            Page 1243-1244
            Page 1245-1246
            Page 1247-1248
            Page 1249-1250
            Page 1251-1252
            Page 1253-1254
            Page 1255-1256
            Page 1257-1258
            Page 1259-1260
            Page 1261-1262
            Page 1263-1264
            Page 1265-1266
            Page 1267-1268
            Page 1269-1270
            Page 1271-1272
            Page 1273-1274
            Page 1275-1276
            Page 1277-1278
            Page 1279-1280
            Page 1281-1282
            Page 1283-1284
            Page 1285-1286
            Page 1287-1288
            Page 1289-1290
            Page 1291-1292
            Page 1293-1294
            Page 1295-1296
            Page 1297-1298
            Page 1299-1300
            Page 1301-1302
            Page 1303-1304
        House of Lords - Saturday, October 28
            Page 1305-1306
            Page 1307-1308
            Page 1309-1310
            Page 1311-1312
            Page 1313-1314
            Page 1315-1316
            Page 1317-1318
            Page 1319-1320
            Page 1321-1322
            Page 1323-1324
            Page 1325-1326
            Page 1327-1328
            Page 1329-1330
            Page 1331-1332
            Page 1333-1334
            Page 1335-1336
            Page 1337-1338
            Page 1339-1340
            Page 1341-1342
            Page 1343-1344
            Page 1345-1346
            Page 1347-1348
            Page 1349-1350
            Page 1351-1352
            Page 1353-1354
            Page 1355-1356
            Page 1357-1358
            Page 1359-1360
            Page 1361-1362
            Page 1363-1364
            Page 1365-1366
            Page 1367-1368
            Page 1369-1370
            Page 1371-1372
            Page 1373-1374
            Page 1375-1376
            Page 1377-1378
            Page 1379-1380
            Page 1381-1382
        House of Lords - Monday, October 30
            Page 1383-1384
            Page 1385-1386
            Page 1387-1388
            Page 1389-1390
            Page 1391-1392
            Page 1393-1394
            Page 1395-1396
            Page 1397-1398
            Page 1399-1400
            Page 1401-1402
            Page 1403-1404
            Page 1405-1406
            Page 1407-1408
            Page 1409-1410
            Page 1411-1412
            Page 1413-1414
            Page 1415-1416
            Page 1417-1418
            Page 1419-1420
            Page 1421-1422
            Page 1423-1424
            Page 1425-1426
            Page 1427-1428
            Page 1429-1430
            Page 1431-1432
            Page 1433-1434
            Page 1435-1436
            Page 1437-1438
    November, 1820
        Page 1439-1440
        House of Lords - Thursday, November 2
            Page 1439-1440
            Page 1441-1442
            Page 1443-1444
            Page 1445-1446
            Page 1447-1448
            Page 1449-1450
            Page 1451-1452
            Page 1453-1454
            Page 1455-1456
            Page 1457-1458
            Page 1459-1460
            Page 1461-1462
            Page 1463-1464
            Page 1465-1466
            Page 1467-1468
            Page 1469-1470
            Page 1471-1472
            Page 1473-1474
            Page 1475-1476
            Page 1477-1478
            Page 1479-1480
            Page 1481-1482
            Page 1483-1484
            Page 1485-1486
            Page 1487-1488
            Page 1489-1490
            Page 1491-1492
            Page 1493-1494
            Page 1495-1496
            Page 1497-1498
            Page 1499-1500
            Page 1501-1502
            Page 1503-1504
            Page 1505-1506
            Page 1507-1508
            Page 1509-1510
            Page 1511-1512
            Page 1513-1514
            Page 1515-1516
            Page 1517-1518
            Page 1519-1520
            Page 1521-1522
            Page 1523-1524
            Page 1525-1526
            Page 1527-1528
        House of Lords - Friday, November 3
            Page 1529-1530
            Page 1531-1532
            Page 1533-1534
            Page 1535-1536
            Page 1537-1538
            Page 1539-1540
            Page 1541-1542
            Page 1543-1544
            Page 1545-1546
            Page 1547-1548
            Page 1549-1550
            Page 1551-1552
            Page 1553-1554
            Page 1555-1556
            Page 1557-1558
            Page 1559-1560
            Page 1561-1562
            Page 1563-1564
            Page 1565-1566
            Page 1567-1568
            Page 1569-1570
            Page 1571-1572
            Page 1573-1574
            Page 1575-1576
            Page 1577-1578
            Page 1579-1580
            Page 1581-1582
            Page 1583-1584
            Page 1585-1586
            Page 1587-1588
        House of Lords - Saturday, November 4
            Page 1589-1590
            Page 1591-1592
            Page 1593-1594
            Page 1595-1596
            Page 1597-1598
            Page 1599-1600
            Page 1601-1602
            Page 1603-1604
            Page 1605-1606
            Page 1607-1608
            Page 1609-1610
            Page 1611-1612
            Page 1613-1614
            Page 1615-1616
            Page 1617-1618
            Page 1619-1620
            Page 1621-1622
            Page 1623-1624
            Page 1625-1626
            Page 1627-1628
            Page 1629-1630
            Page 1631-1632
            Page 1633-1634
            Page 1635-1636
            Page 1637-1638
            Page 1639-1640
            Page 1641-1642
            Page 1643-1644
            Page 1645-1646
            Page 1647-1648
            Page 1649-1650
            Page 1651-1652
            Page 1653-1654
        House of Lords - Monday, November 6
            Page 1655-1656
            Page 1657-1658
            Page 1659-1660
            Page 1661-1662
            Page 1663-1664
            Page 1665-1666
            Page 1667-1668
            Page 1669-1670
            Page 1671-1672
            Page 1673-1674
            Page 1675-1676
            Page 1677-1678
            Page 1679-1680
            Page 1681-1682
            Page 1683-1684
            Page 1685-1686
            Page 1687-1688
            Page 1689-1690
            Page 1691-1692
            Page 1693-1694
            Page 1695-1696
            Page 1697-1698
            Page 1699-1700
        House of Lords - Tuesday, November 7
            Page 1701-1702
            Page 1703-1704
            Page 1705-1706
            Page 1707-1708
            Page 1709-1710
            Page 1711-1712
            Page 1713-1714
            Page 1715-1716
        House of Lords - Wednesday, November 8
            Page 1717-1718
            Page 1719-1720
            Page 1721-1722
            Page 1723-1724
            Page 1725-1726
        House of Lords - Thursday, November 9
            Page 1727-1728
            Page 1729-1730
        House of Lords - Friday, November 10
            Page 1731-1732
            Page 1733-1734
            Page 1735-1736
            Page 1737-1738
            Page 1739-1740
            Page 1741-1742
            Page 1743-1744
            Page 1745-1746
            Page 1747-1748
            Page 1749-1750
    Index of names - House of Lords
        Page 1751-1752
    Index of names - House of Commons
        Page 1753-1754
Full Text









TO "




IN the present Volume of the Parliamentary Debates, the important
Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties against Her Majesty the
Queen, are brought to a termination. The Editor feels it almost un-
necessary to assure the Subscribers and the Public, that no pains have
been spared to give those Proceedings with the greatest accuracy.
The Debates which took place in the several stages of the Bill will
be found detailed at great length. The eloquent Speeches of the
Counsel who appeared for and against the Bill have been carefully
revised and corrected, and compared with the Notes of the eminent
Short-hand Writer to the two Houses, obligingly communicated by the
Agents on both sides for that purpose. And the Examinations in chief,
the Cross-examinations, the Re-examinations, the Examinations by the
Lords, together with the Questions propounded to the learned Judges
and their Answers, the sundry Reports, Protests, &c. &c. have all been
faithfully transcribed from the Minutes and Journals of the House of
Lords. The Editor, therefore, is induced to hope, that he has not been
unsuccessful in his endeavours to present the public with the only com-
plete Report of a Proceeding which, in interest and in magnitude, yields
to no proceeding that ever occupied the attention of Parliament and of
the Nation.

June 18th 1821.










Sept. 8.

TIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY ......................................



Motion by the Earl of Liverpool, That if the Counsel for
her Majesty think proper now to proceed to state the
Case of her Majesty, and mean to produce Evidence,
they must proceed at the close of the statement of the
Case to produce the whole Evidence intended to be
adduced" ........................................................ 4

9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 41
The House adjourns to the 3rd day of October.............. 50

Oct. 3. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 108
Papers relating to Colonel Browne and M. Marrietti ...... 108

Mr. Brougham, the Attorney General of the Queen, was
heard to open the Defence of her Majesty against the
Bill ......................................... ................ .. 11

4. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 178
Mr. Brougham was heard further to open the Defence of
her Majesty against the Bill ............................... 179

__ __

Oct. 4. Mr. Williams, of Counsel also for her Majesty, was heard
to open the Defence against the Bill ....................... 211

5. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 264
Mr. Williams was further heard to open the Defence of her
Majesty ........................................................... 264
James Leman examined by Mr. Denman .................... 300
- examined by the Lords.......................... 302
Anthony Butler St. Leger, esq. examined by Mr. Denman 302
The Earl of Guilford examined by Mr. Tindal ............... 303
- cross-examined by Mr. Attorney
General ................................ 306
- re-examined by Mr. Tindal........... 309
- examined by the Lords .............. 309
Lord Glenbervie examined by Mr. Wilde ................. 312
-. ..- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 314
- examined by the Lords .................... 314
Lady Charlotte Lindsay examined'by Dr. Lushington...... 314
- - cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor
General ........................... 316

6. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 318
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further cross-examined by Mr.
Solicitor General ........................................... 318
- re-examined by Dr. Lushington... 321
- examined by the Lords ............ 322
The Earl of Llandaff examined by Mr. Brougham............ 326
- cross-examined by Mr. Attorney
General ................................ 328
- examined by the Lords ................ 328
The Hon. Keppel Craven examined by Mr. Denman ..... 329
- - cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor
General ....................... 335
- - examined by the Lords........... 339
Sir William Gell examined by Mr. Williams................ 343
- cross-examined by Mr. Parke .......... 358
- examined by the Lords ................. 359

7. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 363
William Carrington examined by Dr. Lushington ............ 363
Two Questions proposed to the Judges relative to the
admissibility of certain Declarations made by Teodoro
Majoochi to William Carrington ............................. 379
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further examined.................... 379
John Whitcombe examined by Mr. Tindal.................... 382
- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 384
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinion and Answer
of the Judges to the Two Questions propounded to
them .......................................................... 391
Teodoro Majoochi examined by the Lords................... 393
William Carrington further examined by Dr. Lushington... 394

Oct. 7. William Carrington cross-examined by Mr. Attorney
General..................................... 95
examined by the Lords .................. 39S
John James Sicard examined by Mr. Brougham ........... 404
- -- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 407
-- -re-examined by Mr. Brougham ......... 410
- examined by the Lords.................... 410

9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 416
Dr. Holland examined by Mr. Wilde .......................... 416
cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General...... 418
re-examined by Mr. Wilde....................... 421
examined by the Lords ....................... 422
Charles Mills, esq. examined by Mr. Denman .............. 426
- cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General 429
- re-examined by Mr. Denman............. 431
- examined by the Lords .................... 431
Joseph Teuill6 examined by Mr. Williams ......... ....... 432
cross-examined by Mr. Parke.................. 433
--- examined by the Lords........................ 435
Carlo Forti examined by Mr. Brougham....................... 436
- cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General ...... 439
- re-examined by Mr. Brougham.................... 445
- examined by the Lords ............................ 445
Lieut. John Flinn examined by Mr. Denman................. 446
- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 449

10. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 456
Lieut. John Flinn further cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor
General ................................. ..... 460
- re-examined by Mr. Brougham........... 468
- examined by the Lords .................... 469
William Carrington further examined by the Lords ......... 489
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam examined by Mr. Tindal... 496

11. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 502
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam further examined by Mr.
Tindal.................... 502
- - cross-examined by Mr.
Attorney General ..... 512
- - re-examined by Mr. Tindal 533
- - examined by the Lords... 536

12. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 541
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam further examined by the
Lords .......................................................... 542
Granville Sharpe, esq. examined by Mr. Denman ........... 563
- cross-examined by Mr. Parke ......... 563
Santino Gugiari examined by Dr. Lushington ............... 564
- cross-examined by Mr. Parke ............... 566
- -- examined by the Lords .......... ......... 569

Oct. 12. Giuseppe Giarolini examined by Mr. Williams .............. 571

13. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 574
Giuseppe Giarolini further examined by Mr. Williams...... 574
-- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 589
- re-examined by Mr. Williams ........... 593
- examined by the Lords..................... 593
Proceedings relative to the Absence of the Witness Restelli 601
John Allan Powell, esq. examined by the Lords, touching
the Absence of the Witness Restelli .................... 624

14. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 624
John Allan Powell, esq. further examined by the Lords,
touching the Absence of the Witness Restelli ........... 627
Joseph Planta, esq. examined by the Lords .................. 651
Filippo Pomi examined by Dr. Lushington................... 655
Joseph Planta, esq. further examined by the Lords ........ 666
Filippo Pomi further examined by Dr. Lushington ......... 666

16. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 672
Sir John Poer Beresford examined by the Lords ........... 673
Filippo Pomi cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General ... 688
- examined by the Lords .......................... 695
Bonfiglio Omati examined by Mr. Wilde .. ................ 716

17. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 722
Questions submitted to the Judges relative to the Acts of
the Advocate Vimercati .................................. 746

18. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties.......... 806
Question proposed for the consideration of the Judges...... 806
Granville Sharpe, esq. further examined by the Lords...... 807
Samuel Inman examined by the Lords ....................... 808
The Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinion of the
Judges upon the Questions submitted to them ........... 808
Bonfiglio Omati further examined by Mr. Wilde .......... 817
-- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General 820
-- re-examined by Mr. Wilde ................ 830
Filippo Pomi further examined by Mr. Tindal ............... 831
cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General ... 831
- examined by the Lords ......................... 832
Antonio Mioni examined by Mr. Williams.................... 833

19. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties........... 842
Antonio Mioni further examined by Mr. Williams ......... 867
- -- examined by the Lords....................... 868
Domenico Salvadore examined by Mr. Brougham............ 869
Questions proposed to the Judges relative to the Declara-
tions and Acts of the Witness Sacchi, &c ................... 882

20. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ,....... 884

Oct. 20. Opinion and Answer of the Judges to the preceding Ques-
tions .................. ......................................... 886
The Marquis of.,Lansdown moves for the appointment of
a Select Committee to inquire into the Correspondence
between Mr. Powell and Colonel Browne, relative to the
sending away of the witness Restelli ...................... 901
Colonel Alessandro Olivieri examined by Mr. Tindal ...... 918
- cross-examinedby Mr. Attorney
General......................... 921
- - re-examined by Mr. Tindal ... 925
- - examined by the Lords ......... 925
21. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 926
John Allan Powell, esq. further examined by the Lords ... 926
Tomaso Lago Maggiore examined by Mr. Wilde ........... 928
- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor
General.............................. 928
- - re-examined by Mr. Wilde ........ 932
- examined by the Lords............... 934
Chevalier Carlo Vassali examined by Mr. Denman ........ 935
- - cross-examined by Mr. Attorney
General................... ...... 942
- - examined by the Lords .......... 953
Correspondence relative to Baron d'Ende's appearance as
a Witness on the part of the Queen ............................ 960
23. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties.......... 966
Report of the Secret Committee appointed to examine the
Correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr.
Powell, relative to the Mission of Restelli to Milan ...... 966
Copy of the Diploma creating Lieut. Hownam a Knight of
the Order of St. Caroline of Jerusalem ................... 973
Louisa Demont further examined by the Lords ............ 975
Fanchette Martigner examined by Mr. Williams ........... 982
- cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor
General ................................ 985
- re-examined by Mr. Williams ......... 988
- examined by the Lords ............... 989
James Leman further examined by Mr. Tindal ............. 990
examined by the Lords ....................... 992
Mr. Brougham stated, that after what had appeared in the
Case of Restelli, and of the Baron d'Ende, her Majesty's
Counsel felt it impossible to proceed further in her
Majesty's Defence ............. ............................. .. 993
Mr. Attorney General applied for time for the Arrival of
Colonel Browne................................................ 998
24s Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1017
The Counsel in support of the Bill informed, that the
House does not think fit to grant the Delay proposed ... 1022
Captain Thomas Briggs further examined by Mr. Attorney
General ....................................................... 1022
S- .- cross-examined by Mr. Brougham 1023

Oct. C1. Captain Thomas Briggs examined by the Lords ............ 105

Mr. Denman, Solicitor General of the Queen, was heard to
sum up the Evidence given on behalf of her Majesty,
and to observe upon the whole Case ....................... 1027
25. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1095
Mr. Denman was further heard to sum up the Evidence
given on behalf of her Majesty ......................... 1095

26. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1185
Dr. Lushington was heard to sum up the Evidence on
behalf of her Majesty ........... ............................. 1185

27. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1238

Mr. Attorney General was heard in Reply.................... 1239
28. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1305
Mr. Attorney General was further and fully heard in Reply 1305
Mr. Solicitor General was in part heard also in Reply ...... 1352

30. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1384
Mr. Solicitor General was further and fully heard in Reply 1384
Mr. Brougham tendered in Evidence certain Letters written
by Baron Ompteda............................................... 1429
The Counsel were informed that the said Letters could not
be received in Evidence......................................... 1439
Nov. 2. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1439
Debate on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read a
second time"-Speeches of the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Erskine, the Earl of Lauderdale, the Earl of Rosebery,
Lord Redesdale ................................................. 1439

S. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1530
Debate on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read a
second time"-Speeches of Earl Grosvenor, the Earl of
Donoughmore, Earl Grey, the Earl of Liverpool ......... 1530
4. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1590
Debate on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read a
second time"-Speeches of the Earl of Liverpool, Lord
Arden, Viscount Falmouth, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord
Ellenborough, Lord Erskine, Lord De Dunstanville,
Lord Manners, the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquis of
Lansdown .................................................... 1590
6'. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1656
Debate on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read a
second time"-Speeches of the Marquis of Lansdown,
the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Howard, the Earl of
Enniskillen, Lord Calthorpe, the Marquis of Stafford,
Lord De Clifford, Lord Grantham, the Earl of Blesing-
ton, the Earl of Gosford, the Duke of Athol, the Duke
Somerset, Lord Grenville, the.Eayl of Rosslyn ............ 1656

Nov. 7. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1701
Debate on the Queen's Protest against the second reading
of the Bill ...................................................... 1701
Debate on the Divorce Clause................................. 1709

8. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ........ 1718
Further Debate on the Divorce Clause ....................... 1718

9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1727
Debate on the said Bill being reported ....................... 1728

10. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties ......... 1732
Debate on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read a
third time ................................................... 1732
The Earl of Liverpool moves, That the further considera-
tion of the Bill be adjourned to this day six months" ... 1746

23. Both Houses prorogued by commission to the 23rd of January,
1821........................................ .............................. 1750


Sept.18. Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty.................... 50
Bill of Pains and Penalties--Petition from Montrose ............ 101
Portugal .................................................................. 105
Bill of Pains and Penalties ............................................ 105
The House adjourns to the 17th of October ....................... 108
Oct. 17. Commercial Restrictions-Petition from Liverpool ............... 748
The Queen-Bill of Pains and Penalties ......................... 749
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Liberation of Franklin,
charged with writing and issuing Seditious Placards, &c....... 756
The Queen-Bill of Pains and Penalties.......................... 783
The House adjourns to the 23rd of November .................. 806


Copy of the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and M. Marrietti... 109
Copy of a Letter from his late Majesty to her Royal Highness the Princess
of Wales, dated November 13th, 1804 ......................................... 207
Copy of a Letter from his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to her
Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, dated April 30th, 1796............ 208
Copy of the Correspondence relative to Baron d'Ende's appearance as a
Witness on the part of the Queen............................................. 960
Copy of the Diploma creating Lieut. Hownam a Knight of the Order of
St. Caroline of Jerusalem ................................................... 973
Copy of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, as amended in the Committee ... 1727


Oct. 20. PROTEST against the Appointment of a Select Committee to
examine the Correspondence between Colonel
Browne and Mr. Powell, relative to the Mission of
Restelli to Milan........................................ 913
Nov. 6. -- against the second reading of the Bill of Pains and
Penalties .................................................. 1700
10. against adjourning the further Consideration of the
Bill of Pains and Penalties.......................... 1748


Oct. 23. iREPORT of the Select Committee appointed to examine the
Correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr.
Powell, relative to the Mission of Restelli to Milan 966


Sept. 8. List of the Minority on the Earl of Liverpool's Motion, rela-
tive to the Mode of Proceeding with her Majesty's
D efence ................................................... .. 58
18. of the Minority on Mr. Hobhouse's Motion, for an Address
to his Majesty praying him to prorogue the Parliament 93
Nov. 6. of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents, on the
Motion, That the Bill of Pains and Penalties be now
read a second time." ......................................... 1688
8. of the Minority on the Divorce Clause in the Bill of Pains
Penalties ...................................................... 1726
10. of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents, on the
Motion That the Bill of Pains and Penalties be now
read a third time." ........................................... 1744

[The Finance Accounts of this Session will be given in the
Appendix to Vol. IV.]

For the QUESTIONS to the JUDGES and their ANswEns,

See VOL. II. Pages 913 See VOL. III. Pages 379
914 ,, ,, 391
,, ,, 1183 7, ,, 746
S 1191 ,, ,, 806
,, ,, 1282 ,, ,, 808
,, ,, 1284 ,, ,, 885
S 1296 ,, 886
,, ,, 1302

Plan of the Polacre, as drawn by Gaetano Paturzo .................Vol. II. p. 904
Plans of the Grotto at the Villa d'Este, as drawn by Santino Gugiari, and
Giuseppe Giarolini ..................................................... Vol. III. p. 570
Order of St. Caroline of Jerusalem................................................ 975

THE KING'S ADVOCATE (Sir Christopher Robinson, knt.)
MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Robert Gifford, knt.)
MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir John S. Copley, knt.)

GEORGE MAULE, esq. Solicitor for the Affairs of his Majesty's Treasury.






Beresford, Sir John Poer ..
Bianche, Giuseppe ........
Bianchi, Antonio .........
Birollo, Francesco ........
Briggs, Captain Thomas....
Brusa, Domenico ..........

Carrington, William........

Cassina, Francesco ........
Craven, Hon. Keppel ......
Cuchi, Pietro ..............
DelP Orto, Giuseppe ......

Demont, Louisa............

Finetti, Alessandro ........
Flinn, Lieutenant John ....
Porti. fCarlo................
Galdini, Luigi ............
Galli, Giuseppe ...........
Gargiulo, Vincenzo ........
Gell, Sir William ..........
Giarolini, GOiseppe ........
Glenbervie. Lord ..........
Guggiari, Giuseppe ........
Guglari, Santino...........
Guilford, Earl of ..........
Base, Robert ..............
Holland, Dr. Henry........
Hownam, Joseph Robert ..
Inman, Samuel ............
Kress, Meidge Barbara ...
Llandaff, Earl of ..........
Leman, James ...,.... ,..

Lindsay, Lady Charlotte .
Lncini, Giovanni ..........
Maggiore, Tomaso Lago....

Majoochi, Teodoro ........

Martigner, Fanchette .....
Mejani, Gerolanmo..........
Mills, Charles, esq. ........
Mioni, Antonio ............
Oggioni, Paolo ..............
Ohlvieri, Col. Alessandro .
Omati, Bonfiglio ......,..
Paturzo, Gaetano .........
Pechell, Captain Samuel .
Planta, Joseph, esq.........

Pomi, Filippo.............-

Powell, John Allan, esq.....

Raggazoni, Paolo ..........
Rancatti, Carlo ...........
Restelli, Giuseppe ........
Sacchi, Giuseppe .........
Salvadore, Domenico ......
Sharpe, Granville, esq. ....
Sicard, John Jacob ........
St. Ledger, An. Butler, esq.
Teuili6, Joseph ............
Vassali, Chevalier Carlo
Whitcombe, John.,.....

S Chief Cross- Examination
0 Esamination. Examination. Re-Examination. by the Lords.

Vol. Page
III. .. to ..
II. 1087 .. 1189
1244 .. 1245
93 .. 944
. 951 .. 9.3
III. 1022 .. 1023
1242 .. 1244
- 363.. 365

II. 1249 .. 1350
III. 39 .. 335
II. 958 .. 961
& 1262 .. 1S63
-- 1111 .. 1157
The Letters
975 .. 980
1239 .. 1242
III. 446 .. 419
436 439
II. 1233 .. 1236
1258 .. 1260
915 .. 923
III. 343.. 358
571.. 589
312 .. 314
II. 1263 .. 1264
III. 564.. 566
303 .. 306
I1. 1319 ...
III. 416 .. 418
496 .. 12

II. 969 .. 973
III. 326 .. 328
5- 300.. 302
9- 90 .. 992
S- 314. 316
Letter. 379
If. 1245 .. 1247
III. 97 .. 928
S11i. 804 .. 841

92 .. 985
I. og99 .. 110oo
IIf. 426 .. 429
833 .. 867
II. 1104 .. 1106
III. 918 .. 921
716 .. 820
II. 889 .. 895
48.. 949
665 .. 666

II. 1092 .. 1095
1103.. ..
1247 .. 1240
1250 .. 1252
1266 .. 1275
III. 869
563 ....
404 .. 407
302 .. 303
43 .. 433
935 .. 941
382 .. 381


1089 to 1091

944 .. 946
953 .. 954
1023 .. 1025

394 .. 395
S.. ..
335 .. 339
961 .. 964
1157 .. 1206
1221 .. 1234
980 .. 981

449 .. 468
439 .. 445
1236 .. 1237
1260 .. 1261
358 .. 359
89 .. 593
1264 .. 1265
566 .. 569
306 .. 309
1319 .. 1320
418 .. 423
512 .. 553

975 .. 1085

316 .. 321

928 .. 932
841 .. 873
933 .. 937
1331 .. 1337

985 .. 988
1100 .. 1103
429 .. 431

1106 .. 1108
921 .. 925
820 .. 830
896 .. 899

652.. 653
688.. 695
831 .. 832

641.. 647

109lo.. 1098

1252 .. 1258
1375 .. 1289

563 564
407 .. 410

433 .. 435
942 .. 953
384.. 385


1091 to 1092


395 .. 398

965 .. 966

1206 .. 1211

468 .. 469
1237 .. 1238





421 421
533 .. 536

31 .. 322

93; .. 934

133 .. 1338


1108 .. 1109


1289 .. 1312

410 ..

673 to 678

946 .. 948
954 .. 95

398.. 404
489.. 406

339 .. 343
966 .. 969

1211 .. 1220

981 .. 982

469 .. 489
445 .. 446
12 8 .. 1239
928 .. 930
359 .. 363
593 .. 597
12C5 .. 1266
569 .. 571
309 .. 31s

422 .. 426
536 .. 563

1085 .. 1087
328 .. 329
992 .. 993
322 .. 326

934 .. 935
1338 .. 1339
393 ., 394
988 .. 989

431 .. 432
868 .. 869
110 .. 1111
925 .. 926

900 906
651 .. 65
695.. 716
831 .. 833
624 .. 641

1312 ..

410 .. 416

953 .. 356
390.. 391

r 7. -- I. Tr-


Parliamentary Debates

During the First Session of the Seventh Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ap-
pointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-first Day
of April 1820, in the First Year of the Reign of His
Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.

Friday, September 8, 1820.
The House was called over; and the
order of the day being read, for the
further consideration and second reading
of the Bill, entitled An Act to deprive
Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Eliza-
beth of the title, perogatives, rights,
privileges, and exemption of Queen-
Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve
the Marriage between His Majesty and
the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth ;"
and for hearing Counsel for and against
the same; Counselwereaccordinglycalled
The Lord Chancellor.-In obedience to
the commands of the House, I have now
to ask you of Counsel to the Queen, in
what manner you propose to proceed in the
Defence ?
Mr. Brougham (Attorney-General of the
Queen).-My lords ; it is our wish to pro-
ceed forthwith.
The Lord Chancellor. Proceeding
forthwith, do you mean that it is your
wish to proceed in opening the Case, and
then following it immediately by Evidence,
or to open the Case, and then to pray
time to produce the Evidence ? I un-
derstand it to be my duty to ask you that
Mr.Brougham.-Undoubtedly, my lords,
we wish to give every information to the
House, consistently with our duty to our
VOL. III. {,}

client. It is probable-but really I can-
not say for certain-it is probable, that we
shall wish to call evidence; in which
case, there are two classes of evidence,
to one of which the observation re-
specting delay alone is applicable. The
other class is not within the scope of
that remark. Your lordships will allow
me to say, that if I shall feel it advisable
to callevidence ; and in the second place,
if I shall also feel it advisable to call evi-
dence not now in this country-in that
case, it will be necessary for us to entreat
the indulgence of the House, after having
been heard to open our case. I trust I
have made myself understood. My lords;
my learned friends about me desire me to
add, and I feel myself also authorised
to add on my own account, that it is also
possible I shall not feel it necessary to
trouble your lordships with evidence-It
is possible.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that
it was obvious, after the answer just given
by her majesty's attorney-general, that it
was necessary he should have a longer
time allowed to bring over his witnesses.
He thought, however, the answer given by
the counsel to the question put by the no-
ble and learned lord on the woolsack, was
by no means as explicit as it ought to be;
and he therefore trusted that the counsel
would be called upon to give a more de-
finite answer.
Lord Erskine was of opinion, that the
learned counsel ought now to be per-
mitted to proceed with his case in defence
of her majesty the Queen, without be-

r 7. -- I. Tr-


Parliamentary Debates

During the First Session of the Seventh Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ap-
pointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-first Day
of April 1820, in the First Year of the Reign of His
Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.

Friday, September 8, 1820.
The House was called over; and the
order of the day being read, for the
further consideration and second reading
of the Bill, entitled An Act to deprive
Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Eliza-
beth of the title, perogatives, rights,
privileges, and exemption of Queen-
Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve
the Marriage between His Majesty and
the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth ;"
and for hearing Counsel for and against
the same; Counselwereaccordinglycalled
The Lord Chancellor.-In obedience to
the commands of the House, I have now
to ask you of Counsel to the Queen, in
what manner you propose to proceed in the
Defence ?
Mr. Brougham (Attorney-General of the
Queen).-My lords ; it is our wish to pro-
ceed forthwith.
The Lord Chancellor. Proceeding
forthwith, do you mean that it is your
wish to proceed in opening the Case, and
then following it immediately by Evidence,
or to open the Case, and then to pray
time to produce the Evidence ? I un-
derstand it to be my duty to ask you that
Mr.Brougham.-Undoubtedly, my lords,
we wish to give every information to the
House, consistently with our duty to our
VOL. III. {,}

client. It is probable-but really I can-
not say for certain-it is probable, that we
shall wish to call evidence; in which
case, there are two classes of evidence,
to one of which the observation re-
specting delay alone is applicable. The
other class is not within the scope of
that remark. Your lordships will allow
me to say, that if I shall feel it advisable
to callevidence ; and in the second place,
if I shall also feel it advisable to call evi-
dence not now in this country-in that
case, it will be necessary for us to entreat
the indulgence of the House, after having
been heard to open our case. I trust I
have made myself understood. My lords;
my learned friends about me desire me to
add, and I feel myself also authorised
to add on my own account, that it is also
possible I shall not feel it necessary to
trouble your lordships with evidence-It
is possible.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that
it was obvious, after the answer just given
by her majesty's attorney-general, that it
was necessary he should have a longer
time allowed to bring over his witnesses.
He thought, however, the answer given by
the counsel to the question put by the no-
ble and learned lord on the woolsack, was
by no means as explicit as it ought to be;
and he therefore trusted that the counsel
would be called upon to give a more de-
finite answer.
Lord Erskine was of opinion, that the
learned counsel ought now to be per-
mitted to proceed with his case in defence
of her majesty the Queen, without be-

ing called upon to determine whether lhe
would stop, or where he would stop,
in the evidence he meant to offer to their
lordships. He ought not to be now call-
ed upon to give any answer to such a
question as it was the wish of his no-
ble friend to put. When he (lord Erskine)
practised at the bar, he should have com-
plained of any question which went to
influence his determination in the defence
of his client until he had entered upon
and proceeded with that defence. The
learned counsel ought to be at liberty to
begin his defence just as he pleased, and
afterwards either to call witnesses, or not
to call them, as suited best his own sense
of the trust reposed in him. In all the
courts of law-and he begged to assure
their lordships that it was his anxious wish,
in this case, to follow the analogy of their
practice, as far as it could be applied to so
anomalous a case as the present-in all the
courts of law the line of proceeding was
this :-The case was set down for a hear-
ing : when its turn came, the counsel for
the case were called upon to proceed forth-
with : they must do so, or show ample
cause why they could not; or they must
render the further proceeding unneces-
sary, by withdrawing the record. When
the counsel once began their case, it was
too late to stop it-their course was then
onward, and the defence must follow in
consecutive and immediate order. If, in
the course of these proceedings, in the
order he had mentioned, any apparent in-
justice had been committed, which the
presence of a particular witness, who
could not then have been forthcoming,
would have prevented, then the law wise-
ly provided a remedy in the shape of an
application for a new trial. In the courts
below, the scales of justice were held
equally poised between both parties in the
cause ; the practice in them was calcu-
lated to work without partiality or pre-
judice; for the law of England was a
.aw of humanity and mercy.-He would
just remind their lordships how the case
of her majesty the Queen was now placed
by the proceedings had before their lord.
ships. The bill had gone forth to the
world, the preamble of which contained
the charge against her majesty. The
case in support of that bill had been
heard ; and he humbly submitted, that if
their lordships meant to have called on
the counsel for the defence to proceed
straight-forward through the whole of
their evidence, they ought to have, in the

Bill of Pains and Penalties [4
first instance, furnished them with the
means of meeting the charge, by giving
them, if not a list of the witnesses, at
least a specification of the times and
places to which the accusation referred.
Had their lordships given this information,
by acceding to the motion which he had,
on a former occasion, submitted to them,
and then postponed the commencement
of the case until proper time was allowed
for all parties to be prepared, there would
have been no ground for claiming any
delay between the evidence for the prose-
cution and that for the defence. But their
lordships had thought proper to reject his
motion; and they had by so doing de-
prived the accused of the opportunity of
knowing any thing like the particular line
of defence which it might be necessary
for her to adopt, until the whole of the
case for the Bill had been gone through.
He could not, under these circumstances,
see how they could call upon her majes-
ty's attorney-general to state the precise
course which it was his intention to take
in shaping the defence. To call upon
him now to say whether he was ready to
go through his whole evidence would be
quite peremptory, considering that their
lordships had already admitted that delay
would be necessary to enable the counsel
fully to cross-examine the witnesses in
favour of the Bill. It was obvious, he
thought, that they had as yet hardly time
to acquire that information respecting the
witnesses which could be supposed to
qualify them properly for a full cross-exa-
mination. At all events, the question of
adjournment was not now before their
lordships, and they were not called upon
to anticipate it. For that reason, they
ought not to interpose and prevent the
counsel from entering upon the defence,
now when the season had arrived for his
meeting the charge. The attorney-ge-
neral had lately made an application to
their lordships for delay, which he
had afterwards withdrawn ; and the noble
and learned lord on the woolsack subse-
quently admitted the propriety of that
application, and added, that the attorney-
general had a right to make it. Why,
then, say to the Queen's attorney-gene-
ral, You must adjourn now, or not at
all ?" Why anticipate that he may make
an application for delay, which may not,
at the time he shall make it, be proved to
be right, to be reasonable and proper?
He conjured the House just to reflect
for a moment at its present situation.

5] against her Majesty.
The case for the bill was closed: the
counsel against it were called upon for
their defence; they replied, that they
were ready to proceed with it forthwith.
Yet, notwithstanding their undoubted
right to meet the case so adduced, some
of their lordships appeared to think that
the case had better be now adjourned,
until the counsel could say they were pre-
pared with the whole of their evidence.
A delay under such circumstances would,
he thought, be most unfavourable to one
of the parties. The evidence in support
of the bill had gone forth up to the
present state; it had gone forth not only
to the public of this, but of every other
country. To say that such a publication
of the evidence was calculated to make
no impression, was to utter that which
could not be the fact; indeed, the noble
earl opposite (the earl of Liverpool) had,
much to his honour, admitted that it was
calculated to make such an impression,
but that there was no avoiding it; though
he added, that he had no doubt their
lordships, who were the judges in the
case, would suffer no impression to be
made upon them until they had heard
the whole of the case on both sides. But
how was it possible for them to avoid the
influence of this first impression, which
the statement of one part of the case was
necessarily calculated to produce ? He
hoped no man would consider him either
blasphemous or irreverent, when he said
that God could not make them forbear
feeling that which he had in his wisdom
already ordained, and which it was the
constitution of human nature to feel,
according to the influence of circum-
stances. It was therefore impossible for
their lordships, with the attributes which
belonged to human minds, to look over
the minutes of these proceedings, with-
out feeling that impression which they
were calculated to excite. If they had
intended to adjourn without hearing any
statement from her majesty's counsel,
they were bound to have adjourned when
the evidence for the Crown closed; there
they should have stopped, if such had
been their intention, and not permitted
the solicitor-general to have summed up.
What was that summing up ? It was what
it ought to be, standing as the solicitor-
general was placed. He (lord Erskine)
had left his seat, and had gone into one
of the galleries for the greater conveni-
ence of hearing it. The learned solicitor-
general had said, in his summing up, not

SFPT. 8, 1820. [6
only that the evidence, as it stood, made
out a clear case against her majesty, and
in support of the whole crime set forth
in the preamble of the bill; but he had
felt it his duty to add, that he could
not, by any possibility, see or imagine
how, from the nature of the evidence, the
facts stated by the witnesses could in any
manner be confbatted. He had repeated
over and over again, that it was impossible
the facts could be rebutted-that no such
consequence could arise from any evi-
dence which could be produced for the
defence. The learned solicitor-general,
in making these comments upon the case
he was bound to support, had done no
more than his duty; but if their lord-
ships, after hearing that speech, decided
upon adjourning without hearing any ob-
servations from the counsel against the
bill, then they would, during the time of
their adjournment, be it for two or three
months, be exposed, not alone to the im-
pression of the evidence for the bill, but
also of the speech made in support of it
in the summing up of the evidence. He
begged leave just to put a case. Suppose
the case of a prosecution which had ter-
minated at a late hour in the day, and
that the counsel for the prosecution ap-
plied to the judge to adjourn until the
following day, when it would be more
convenient to begin with hearing the de-
fence; suppose, then, the counsel for the
defence should say, No, I oppose the
adjournment; I desire to have my right
of answering this case before the jury
shall go home under the influence of the
prosecutor's statement: I seek now to be
heard to take off that impression, which I
can do." Did their lordships think any
learned judge upon the bench would tell
that counsel who demanded to be heard,
that he must desist from removing the
impression created by the counsel for the
prosecution until the following morning?
No judge would say so; if he did, he
would violate his duty.-Besides, he de-
sired to know on what ground the ques-
tion of adjournment was brought at all
under their lordships' consideration at the
present moment. No adjournment was
now called for, and no decision upon it
was now necessary. Whenever that sub-
ject came before them, their lordships
could consider the grounds upon which
it was made, and dispose of it as their
sense of justice dictated. An adjourn-
ment now would, it was said, be favourable
to the Queen, as it would enable her ma.

jesty fully to meet the evidence against ample opportunity of collecting whatever
her : now, on the contrary, he thought it evidence could be had to combat the facts
would be rather unfavourable to her, after asserted in support of the bill. He felt
the summing up had been permitted. He convinced that no fair man, that no mem-
conjured the House to suffer the Queen's ber of their lordships' House, would suffer
attorney-general to proceed: he had any impression to operate upon his mind
stated that he was prepared with testi- to the prejudice of her majesty the Queen,
mony which would overthrow the impres- until he had heard her defence, and had
sion which the statementoof counsel for arrived at the conclusion of the whole
the bill was calculated to produce. Let, case. He was at a loss to see what
then, the bane and antidote" go forth just grounds of complaint the counsel for
both together; and let their lordships her majesty could have at the summing-up
carry home in their minds the statement being permitted before the adjournment:
on each side, instead of the statement on that adjournment, surely, would enable
one. If they suffered the counsel against them the better to ruminate over the case
the bill now to proceed, they would, as for the prosecution, and the value at-
he thought, be acting right; if they re- tached to any of the details of evidence
fused him the permission he claimed, then in its support, and to make a more com-
he thought they would be inflicting a plete and decisive reply to all that had
great wrong. It was only right to call been urged. As the case stood, the evi-
upon their lordships to suspend, so far as dence had gone forth, and the summing-
they had the power, the prevalence of any up could be compared with that evidence;
opinion upon the case, until the whole but if they permitted the attorney-general
was gone through. For himself, he had of her majesty to proceed now, they
no feeling upon it but the attainment of would be hearing a statement unaccom-
the real ends of justice; but he begged panied by any proof in its support. He
that he might not be under the necessity knew the counsel of her majesty to be
of meeting an adjournment under the im- men of as much honour, respectability,
pression of ex-parte evidence and a sum- and talents, as could be found, and that
ming-up speech. there was no danger of their making use
The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the of the opportunity of stating their case
question on which their lordships were to assert any thing as a fact which they
now called upon to decide was precisely were not instructed they should after-
this-whether, if an adjournment were wards have the means of substantiating in
necessary, that adjournment should take evidence; but he could not consent to
place at the time the case for the bill had intrust counsel any where with the privi-
closed; or whether the counsel against lege of stating the case for a client, un-
the bill should be permitted to make his less they were to be immediately after
opening speech, and then to have an ad- called upon to adduce their evidence.
journment before the production of his He saw great danger in extending such
evidence. Now, he was prepared to con- an indulgence to any body. Indeed, such
tend, that if the House adjourned at all, a proposition as this had never before
the present was the proper time when that been made in any court. To talk of what
adjournment ought to take place [Hear, the courts below would do in such a case,
hear!]. They could take no other course was to reason without analogy; for there
respecting an adjournment without com- never before was tolerated, in any case in
emitting great injustice. He was perfectly the courts, such an adjournment as their
ready to concur in opinion with his noble lordships were now ready to concede to
and learned friend, that an adjournment the Queen, between the opening of the
at any time was a great evil; but they case and her defence. But he did re-
had in this case a choice of evils, and they member having been present at the hear-
were bound to select the lesser of the two. ing of a case in the courts below, when
It was true that, if they adjourned now an application made on the part of the
for the space of two months, both the evi- defendant for a few hours' delay was pe-
dence and the speech of the solicitor- remptorily refused. Did not the late
general would go forth to the world dur- lord Ellenborough, in lord Cochrane's
ing such a recess ; but it was a mistake to case, give that refusal? The case for thp
say it went forth unaccompanied by cross- prosecution had been closed, and the
examination; for there had been cross- counsel for the defendant made an appli-
examination, andtheadjournment afforded cation to have until the following morning


Bill of Pains and Penalties

9] against her Majesty.
to prepare the defence. Lord Ellenbo-
rough instantly rejected the application :
he said that he had a great many hours of
the day yet to spare, and that he could
not think of interrupting the proceedings.
He was perfectly at a loss to conjecture
the object of the learned counsel of the
Queen in wishing to have a speech, and
then to adjourn their evidence. If they
had their witnesses ready, why not go on ?
If not, how could they comment upon
evidence which might not hereafter be
available for them ? He submitted to
their lordships' candour, whether it was
not the general understanding, that the
adjournment, if at all, was to take place
in the present stage of the proceedings?
The fact was, that her majesty's counsel,
if their application were granted, must
either state a case far short of what they
would be able to prove, or else indulge
their imagination; and unless he had lost
all idea of what was likely to influence
the minds of men, such a proceeding
would be directly calculated to produce
that effect.
The Lord Chancellor said, he had never,
in the course of a professional life, felt
more strongly inclined to avoid any duty,
than that which he now was called upon
to execute. He begged to be understood
as by no means opposing the indulgence
in the first instance suggested-the giving
time to counsel, if time they required, for
the preparation of their defence; but,
painful as it was for the House to resolve
upon a course, the effect of their resolu-
tion would not be confined either to the
present case or to the present day; they
must act upon some principle on which
they could fairly leave the future and
the general administration of justice.
Most unjustifiably he should disguise
his opinion if he said, that evil did not
attend the view which he had taken of
the case. True, every individual who sat
in that House would stand convicted of
violating his duty, if he suffered himself to
infer any thing even approaching to guilt
from the evidence which had been laid
before him. It was the duty of the House
to remember, that every syllable of it was
capable of being disproved, and to guide
its conduct by that recollection; but, at
the same time, it would be most unjust to
represent, it was impossible even to hope,
that either the House or the public could,
after what they had heard, go away with-
out some prejudice unfavourable to the
Queen. Their lordships, then, had but a

SEPT. 8, 1820. C10
choice of evils; and it was for them to
consider what would be the consequence
in criminal cases hereafter, if that evi-
dence which was necessary to the state-
ment of any case which counsel might
have to offer were postponed to an inde-
finite period after that statement had been
made. Himself, as well as his noble and
learned friend, lord Erskine, were ap-
proaching the term of their natural ex-
istence. No doubt both acted from a
feeling of their duty. He gave credit to
that noble and learned lord for more ex-
perience in matters of similar description
than he could have; still they might
differ-they did differ. He agreed with
the noble lord that the House had no
right to say to a counsel, If you open
your case, you shall pledge yourself that
you will call witnesses, or that you will
not call witnesses." It would be difficult
for him to illustrate his Imeaning by any
reference to the proceedings of the courts
below, because in those courts adjourn.
ment even for a week was a thing never
heard of; and an adjournment for two
months was out of the question; but he
would ask the noble and learned lord, or
any noble lord conversant with the prac-
tice of the courts below, whether the
rule was not this:-You cannot call upon
a defendant's counsel in opening his case,
to say whether he will or will not examine
witnesses; but if he does commence his
statement, and at the close of it is of
opinion that he ought to call witnesses,
then the commencing his defence has
given an implied pledge to the court that
his witnesses, should he think fit to call
any, are ready to be produced. He did
most confidently assert, that in opening a
case every counsel gave an implied
pledge to the court that he was ready to
finish it. Such a counsel might call evi-
dence if he pleased, or, without evidence,
take the opinion of the jury; but he must
close his case in one way or the other.
He made (the noble lord continued) libe-
ral and large allowance for the prejudice
which the one side might suffer in the
public mind ; but suppose the prosecutors
had demanded to open their case before
they were ready to call their evidence,
would such a proposal have been endured?
Then look at the nature of the prejudice,
which, as to the one party, would be ex-
cited. The supporters of the bill had
stated their case, and examined their wit-
nesses; the other side had enjoyed the
benefit of cross-examination, and of occa-

sional observation upon such cross-exa-
mination; but if the House permitted
the statement of the defendant's case,
what would be the consequence? He
agreed with the noble lord upon the
cross-bench, that great confidence might
be reposed in the honour of the learned
counsel to whom the defence of the
Queen was committed; and he hoped
never to see at that bar any man in whom
the fullest confidence might not be placed;
but, as a general principle, the security of
the administration of justice demanded
that implicit credit should not be given
to counsel; and it was not because the
individuals at present concerned were
men ofhonourable and cautious character
that the House would be justified in es-
tablishing a precedent, which must be
abided by under circumstances perhaps
of a different description. It was upon
general principles applicable to all men,
and upon such principles only, that the
House could safely and properly act. But
if the House acceded to this request of
counsel, what would be the consequence,
what the prejudice sustained by the other
side? Their lordships would have before
them the statement of the defendant, un-
supported by evidence, or only by partial
evidence; and perhaps, by-and-by, evi-
dence brought forward applying to a case
entirely different. And the noble and
learned lord told the House that this was
all owing to the want of specification in
the bill. It was no such thing: a propo-
sition had not long ago been made by the
noble and learned lord to delay the pro-
ceeding altogether for a considerable
time, and then to commence and com-
plete it without stopping; but such a
course would have been impracticable;
the very nature of the case would have
compelled the counsel for the defendant
to call for delay at the close of the evi-
dence in support of the bill. In addition
to what he had said, lie would merely
state that he had taken the earliest op-
portunity of addressing the House with
no other view than to discharge a painful,
butan absolute, duty. Consistently with
that duty-consistently with the honour
of a peer, or with the duty of a man-he
could not consent to the proposition of
her majesty's counsel. He could not
agree to their opening their defence with-
out a positive statement that they meant
to complete it-unless the House took
the commencement as an implied pledge
for the completion; and he should have

Bill of Pains and Penalies (12
thought that he acted unworthily if he
had permitted them to give that pledge
without announcing that as a pledge he
should consider it.
Earl Grey declared, that the present
question seemed to him most important
in every point of view. It was important
as it affected the pending proceeding-
important as it affected the influence and
the character of the House; and lie should
have felt himself unworthy of that rank
which he always hoped to hold in the opi-
nion of their lordships as an honest and
independent peer-if not blessed with
those brilliant talents which upon some
occasions he could wish to command-if
he had not upon such a question offered
his opinion in opposition to that of the
noble and learned lord who had last sat
down. He agreed that it was a case of
difficulty, and it was with difficulty that
he had come to a conclusion upon it. He
had hesitated, doubted, and when he
should at last decide, he should feel with
the noble and learned lord that he took
a choice of evils. With that noble and
learned lord, however, he could go no
further. He could not agree that the pre-
sent difficulty ought not to be ascribed to
the previous proceedings of the House.
It appeared to him to arise entirely out
of those proceedings-out of. the refusal
to give in this case to the Queen that cer-
tainty of situation, that specification of
crime, and that knowledge of witnesses,
which the law of England allowed to every
individual similarly situated. The noble
and learned lord upon the woolsack had
made an assertion-which was merely an
assertion-that even if those advantages
(rights he ought rather to have called
them) had been granted, the counsel for
the defence must at last have come to an
application for delay. He was at a loss
to understand upon what principle that
assertion could be grounded. If the spe-
cification of charges, the list of witnesses,
and the other advantages had been given,
nothing could have occurred, as it ap-
peared to him, to entitle her majesty's
counsel to make such an application; no-
thing which could give them any claim to
a deviation from those forms in similar
cases commonly observed; but, refused
those rights by the noble earl opposite,
and by the House at large-attacked by
charges spreading, in time, over a period
of six years, and in space over three
quarters of the world-denied that speci-
fication of facts, that list of witnesses,

13] against her Mqjesty.
which would have been granted to her in
the ecclesiastical courts, and which, if in-
dicted for treason, she might, by the law
of Edward III, have claimed even before
that House-denied those advantages, an
equivalent at some stage became abso-
lutely necessary, in order to enable her
majesty to enter upon her defence with
that power which the law of England
granted even to the meanest culprit-the
power of doing justice to her innocence,
if innocent she was. The equivalent was
necessary; the equivalent was promised ;
and the question was now, in what man-
ner it should be given ?-His noble friend
upon the cross-bench; and the noble and
learned lord upon the woolsack, had
stated the extreme disadvantage which
was to arise, if, after hearing an opening
speech from the counsel for the Queen,
and, still worse, if, after hearing the evi-
dence in part, the House were to adjourn
the proceeding. In the first place, he
would endeavour to set the House right
as to what he took to be a misapprehen-
sion of the learned counsel at the bar.
He had not understood the learned coun-
sel to propose that, after hearing the evi-
dence in part, the House should adjourn
until farther evidence should be procured.
The proposition of the learned counsel he
took to be this-that he would proceed
forthwith with his statement, but that he
could not, until he should have concluded
that statement, take upon himself to say,
whether the impression which it had pro-
duced upon the House would or would
not make it necessary for him to call evi-
dence. That evidence was of two kinds
-part actually in the learned counsel's
possession, and part at a distance; but he
had not understood the learned counsel to
say, that if, at the conclusion of his state-
ment, he should decide to call evidence,
he would first produce that which was in his
possession, and then apply to suspend the
case until he could collect that which was
at a distance. The difference was mate-
rial; for although he heartily concurred
in the first application, he was by no
means prepared to accede to the second.
He had admitted that the House had only
a choice of evils, and he would admit,
that there would be considerable disad-
vantage in sending forth to the country a
statement, not only unobserved upon by
the opposite counsel, but unsupported by
evidence, and perhaps incapable of being
sustained by the evidence afterwards to
be brought in support of it; but the

SaPT. 8, 1820. [14!
House was not to presume, and God for-
bid they should have reason to presume,
that any counsel, much less those now
employed by her majesty, would abuse
the privilege granted to them by the
House, for the sake of producing a tem-
porary impression. That was not a cha-
racter to be given to any counsel standing
in the situation of attorney-general and
solicitor-general to the Queen; and, from
his knowledge of the gentlemen who now
filled those offices, he was confident that
they would state nothing which they did
not think material to their case, and no-
thing which they had not the means, by
evidence, of supporting. He admitted
that there were questions to be decided,
not upon individual character, but upon
general principle; that, however they
might be disposed to trust the counsel,
they must remember that counsel acted
from their instructions, and that those in-
structions might be furnished to them by
persons not actuated by the same liberal
and honourable principles. He admitted
all this; he would admit evil to any ex-
tent which the noble lords who opposed
the application might desire; he admitted
all the difficulty; but he desired them to
look at the other side, and to view the
effect of the course proposed by the no-
ble lord upon the cross-bench. In what
situation did that course leave the Queen ?
It left her exposed to the effect of all the
evidence, true or untrue, which had al-
ready been produced. It was said, that
all that had been set right by the cross-
examination; but it was not by cross-ex-
amination only that evidence could be
answered. A clever witness, deposing to
falsehood, might baffle cross-examination,
especially when, understanding the lan-
guage in which the question was put, he
had time to frame his answer while the
question was translating. This might de-
feat cross-examination in any case; but
here the cross-examination was of neces-
sity imperfect. What could be hoped
from cross-examination, when the exa-
mining counsel knew neither the character,
the residence, nor even the name of the
witness, until he appeared at the bar, and
when he was compelled to adapt his ques-
tions merely to the circumstances which
the witness had deposed to ? It was only
by contrary proof that such witnesses
were to be contradicted; and he would
put it to those who now dreaded the effect
of a mere statement going forth for three
months, to say what would be the effect

of suffering the evidence of perjured wit-
nesses to go forth during the same period.
He did not mean to give that character to
the witnesses in the present case; but the
House had been told, that they must act
upon general principles. But it was not
the evidence merely that was to go forth.
That evidence had been followed up by
the summing-up of the solicitor-general,
bringing all its circles to one point before
the view of the House, and concluding
with a complaint of hardship on the part
of the learned gentleman (a hardship,
however, of which counsel were some-
times given to complain), a complaint
that the case had been so strongly made
out, that it was impossible for him to
foresee what defence could be offered.
Now, looking at the comparative disad-
vantage of granting the application, and
of refusing it; and looking at the situa-
tions of the parties who, by such disad-
vantage, were to be affected; he did ask
the House, whether, in the spirit of Eng-
lish law, or in the spirit of universal jus-
tice, upon any principle of common hu-
manity or compassion, they could subject
the accused to that disadvantage, and
give every advantage to the accuser ? or
whether they ought not to respect that
humane principle of English law, which
surrounded the accused on every side
with protection, and cast disadvantage, if
disadvantage must be the lot of one, upon
the side of the accuser? This he would
contend for as a general principle; but in
the particular case before the House, it
was an argument irresistible; because,
how had the disadvantage been created?
By the act of the House itself-by the
bill of Pains and Penalties-by a proceed-
ing altogether anomalous, for which no
precedent could be cited, and which, he
trusted would never be cited as a prece-
dent. It was that proceeding that had
embarrassed the House with difficulties;
every step they took, theirysmbarassments
were increasing; the House had encoun-
tered nothing but difficulties since first
they entered that.
Perfidious bark,
" Built in th' eclipse, and rigg'd with curses
The House had denied a right; they had
promised an equivalent. This was the
equivalentdemanded, and yet the Queen
was told that she must submit to have all
the evidence against her circulated for
months, and not to be permitted to say
one word to weaken the prejudice which

Bill of Pains and Penalties [16
that evidence had created. In this choice
of evils he must choose the least, and he
did so when he supported the application.
-He had already trespassed too long upon
the time of the House, but he could not
forbear to say a few words upon the case
which had been cited by the noble lord
upon the cross-bench; that case had been
decided by the late lord Ellenborough;
and when he mentioned the name of lord
Ellenborough, he mentioned the name of
a person for whom he felt the highest re-
spect, who had done honour to the seat
which he had filled, and whose conduct,
ability, and learning, would be remem-
bered as long as the law should continue
to exist; but he had often heard the case
in question mentioned, and never without
regret on the part of the noble lord's best
friends, for the course which he had taken
upon that occasion. The case was this:
-At a late hour of the night, a counsel
(a learned judge now present was the in-
dividual) had applied to lord Ellenborough
for time, stating his own personal inade-
quacy, from fatigue, to the task of ad-
dressing the jury; and the inadequacy of
the jury, from the same cause, to afford
him attention. Lord Ellenborough in-
sisted that Mr. Serjeant Best should pro-,
ceed immediately. Mr. Serjeant Best
then did what the learned counsel at the
bar now proposed to do-he went on.
And, what was the consequence? Did he
proceed to the end of the cause ? On the
contrary, he stopped when he had opened
his case. The cause which the judge re-
fused to suspend before the opening the
case, had been suspended before the pro.
duction of the evidence. A case more
unhappy, as regarded the arguments of
the noble lord who had cited it, he had
never heard.-I have troubled your lord-
ships (said earl Grey) longer than I in-
tended; but I have been induced to do
so from an imperious sense of duty. From
day to day, since this disastrous proceed-
ing commenced, we have been engaged
in new difficulties, inconsistent not alone
with the rules of parliament, but incon-
sistent, I am sorry to be obliged to add,
with the principles of justice. It is not,
my lords, longer ago than yesterday, when
a communication was about to be made
from your lordships to her majesty's
counsel, on a point preliminary to her de-
fence, that a question was put by a noble
earl (Lonsdale), founded on an under-
standing, which was the result of an apl
plication of a certain number of your

171 against her Majesty. SEPT. 8, 1820. [L1
lordships to the head of the Treasury, as one side was not beyond all comparison
to a separation of the parts of the present greater than on the other; and he
bill [Cries of Hear, hear!]. This un- was much mistaken if he should not
heard-of proposition, the recollection of show their lordships, that whatever incon-
which, even at this moment, shocks me, venience the Queen might sustain from a
did not, happily, receive much approbation refusal of the application, that.inconveni-
when explained. To-day we are called ence would be incomparably less than that
upon to make a decision on a choice of which would result, not only to the par-
evils, all brought upon ourselves by our ticular case in question, but to the general
own acts, and any decision on which, we course of justice, from that application
have the authority of the noble and being granted. Before, however, he
learned lord on the woolsack for saying, came to that part of the question, he wish-
must be productive of bad consequences. ed to say a few words in answer to what
I do believe the noble and learned lord. had fallen from the noble earl, as to the
I do feel the character of the whole pro- cause by which the present inconvenience
ceeding to be this-that whatever course had been produced. He did not mean
we take-whatever decision we adopt, at this time of day, to enter into the qu_
must be injurious to the public safety. tion whether the proceeding by bill of
But, my lords, in this admitted choice of Pains and Penalties was the best or the
evils, there still is to be found a duty- most proper course that could have been
and if in the exercise of a sound judg- pursued; but of this he was certain-that,
ment, we can fix on that choice which is as far as it regarded the accused party, it
the least encumbered with difficulties, was a course far more favourable than the
that 'is the decision which I think we course by impeachment, which had been
should approve. But if the course I re- proposed by the noble earl himself. If
commend is less surrounded with evils ; it the course by impeachment had been
has, in my judgment, also this powerful adopted, the first proceeding would have
recommendation, that, if we are so situated taken place in the House of Commons;
as not to be able to proceed, without im- the evidence would not have been given
posing difficulties on both the parties upon oath; such as it was, it would have
whose interests are affected by this bill, been merely ex part ; it would not have
we are bound to adopt that course which been subjected to cross-examination, and
the spirit of justice and the whole analogy the accused could have brought no wit-
of British law inculcates, namely, that if nesses in her defence. The consequence
difficulties must be imposed, they should would have been that a much stronger
be thrown upon the accuser, and not upon mass of evidence would have been gone
the accused-they should be imposed into (because things would have been
upon those who uphold the bill with the merely stated, perhaps, which would not
whole influence of authority and power, have been sworn to); and the whole of
rather than upon the illustrious personage that evidence, without cross-examinationi
against whom the whole of that influence without even a remark from the counsel
and power is directed. My lords, this is employed on the part of the Queen, would
the choice which I feel to be dictated by have gone down to the public many weeks,
the principles of law and justice; and to or perhaps months, before the business
the spirit of those principles I appeal. For coming on in the House of Lords would
my own part, I never gave a more satis- have given her majesty the opportunity
factory vote in the whole course of my of making her defence. Add to that, all
political life, than I shall do in support of the privileges claimed in such cases by
the application this day made by her ma- ~he House of Commons; there would be
jesty's counsel. no list of witnesses there; no specification
The Earl of Liverpool was ready, he of charges; nay, new charges might be
said, to admit the proposition which had introduced at pleasure; and no one could
been laid down by the noble earl in the doubt that, whether the course adopted
beginning of his speech, and with the was or was not the most expedient and
repetition of which he had closed it-that most constitutional, it was, as regarded
if the question were one of equal disad- the Queen, beyond comparison the most
vantage to either side, the benefit of the favourable. In the present case, the facts
doubt ought to be given to her majesty, were charged as specifically as the nature
But the question for the House to con- of the transaction would admit; and the
sider was, whether the inconvenience on accusers came with their evidence upon

oath, and subject to cross-examination
and to comment. As to furnishing the
names of the witnesses, there was no
precedent for it, there was no law which
authorised it, with the exception of the
law of high treason-a law that stood on
its own particular ground-and which ex-
ception grew out of the severe nature of
the penalties attached to the crime. That
exception was contrary to all the prin-
ciples of our law; and let it be remember-
ed, that some of the highest constitutional
authorities known in this country had ex-
pressed serious doubts whether, even in
cases of high treason, such an indulgence
ought to be granted. It was, however,
Lrfectly true, that in the course of the
Wscussions on the present case, it was
agreed, not merely from the consideration
that a list of witnesses was refused, but on
account of other considerations, which
had infinitely more weight on his mind-
namely, the nature of the crime itself, and
the circumstance of its having been com-
mitted abroad-that her majesty should
have an interval between the close of the
accusation and the commencement of the
defence, in order, if possible, that she
might be enabled to rebut the evidence
adduced against her: but he would ask
of their lordships, when that advantage
was held out to her majesty, whether
there was any one of them who supposed
or believed that it was to be granted in
the middle of the defence, and not at the
end of the prosecution; or who understood
it in any other sense but this-either that
the counsel for her majesty was to pro-
ceed immediately with the defence when
the prosecution was closed, or else to ask
for any reasonable delay that might be
necessary to give him an opportunity for
the collection of such evidence as would
shake the case laid before their lordships ?
That, however, which was now required
was not a delay previous to the defence,
but in the course of the defence, and at
any period, too, in which the counsel for
the Queen might please to demand it.
This was a proposition inconsistent with
every possible principle of justice. A
noble and learned lord (Erskine), for
whose authority on subjects of this nature
he entertained, as he ought to do, the
highest respect, had said that his majesty's
solicitor-general could have put off his
summing up. He would ask how the so-
licitor-general could have put it off? How
could thei.lordships have said one word
to the counsel for her majesty until the

Bill of Pains and Penalties [20
case was closed on the other side ? If the
cross-examination had been postponed,
that would have been the proper period
for their lordships' adjournment, in order
to afford the opposite party the time ne-
cessary for procuring witnesses. But the
cross-examination having gone on, the
moment the attorney-general for the
Queen said, I have no further questions
to ask," then, he maintained, his majesty's
solicitor-general was bound to proceed
with his summing up, and they had no right
to press that circumstance against the
counsel for the bill. They had heard a
great deal about this cross-examination
of witnesses, and he must say that he did,
on a former day, when questions were
agitated by a noble and learned lord
(Erskine) on the subject of furnishing a
list of witnesses, state his opinion, that
her majesty's counsel had a right to ad-
journ their cross-examination, because it
was hard to suppose that they should be
forced to adopt a course that did not seem
to them to be most advantageous for the
interests of the illustrious individual in
whose behalf they appeared; and as they
had waved all farther cross-examination,
it was to be inferred that they had done
so, because any further questions appeared
to them to be unnecessary. It might be
said, that the counsel for her majesty
were not possessed of the names of the
witnesses, and that they could not imagine
who would be brought forward on the
part of the prosecution. Undoubtedly
witnesses were produced, of whom, per-
haps, they had never heard, and of whom
probably they had not even thought. But
he conceived it almost impossible for them
to read the preamble of the bill, without
perceiving of what description some, and
those material witnesses for the bill, were,
and to what class of persons they belong-
ed. He did not mean to take this obser-
vation for more than it was really worth ;
but he could not allow the remarks that
had been previously made on this part of
the subject to pass without stating so
much.-He now came to what he con-
ceived to be the main point of the ques-
tion; namely, was there any comparison
at all between the convenience which her
majesty would derive from the delay re-
quired, and the inconvenience that it
would occasion to the great cause of
public justice? He spoke of a delay not
now, but in the middle of the defence.
In commenting on this question, he wish-
ed, in the first place, to guard himself

21J against her Majesty.
from being supposed to throw any reflec-
tion whatsoever on the counsel employed
for her majesty. He believed they acted
as honourably as any men placed in their
situation could do; and that, in the course
of this proceeding, they looked only to a
proper discharge of their duty. But they
had said, that, having the interests of a
great and illustrious person in their hands,
they were bound to consult her advantage
in every thing and by every means. IHe
thought, therefore, their lordships had a
right to argue, not on the perfectibility
of the individuals, but with reference to
what might happen hereafter in cases of a
similar nature. How did the matter
stand ? The case had been opened-wit-
nesses were called in support of it-they
were cross-examined by counsel, and re-
examined by their lordships. The evi-
dence-the ex parte evidence, if they
pleased-had been sifted as far as such
evidence could be sifted. The case, he
admitted, had been summed up-a cir-
cumstance on which he had already made
an observation. Their lordships had the
case for the prosecution before them-
they were in possession of the charge, and
of the evidence adduced in support of it.
He did not mean to say that no inconve-
nience would result from the circumstance
of the charge going forth and remaining
in the minds of their lordships and of the
public for a period of two months. He
admitted that it must produce inconveni-
ence. Although their lordships, lie was
convinced, were desirous to keep their
minds in a state of perfect impar-
tiality, unbiassed either one way or the
other, yet he could not contend that a
disadvantage might not arise, in conse-
quence of their being acquainted with the
whole of the case on one side, and the
evidence by which it was supported. It
was, therefore, a choice of difficulties.
And, in coming to a decision, it was ne-
cessary that they should consider what
situation the House might be placed in, if
the application for delay, in the midst of
the defence, were conceded. If it were
allowed, learned counsel (and he here
spoke of learned counsel generally) might
open a case on false information, which
they possessed no means of proving and
verifying. Their lordships might have an
imaginary case stated before them, with-
out any evidence whatsoever to support
it. What, then, was the difference be-
tween a case going forth together with
the evidence on which it was founded, and

SEPT. 8, 1820. [22
a statement going forth without'any means
of ascertaining how it would be supported?
In the one case, they had the evidence
with the statement; in the other, they
had a statement without any evidence at
all, much less with any evidence capable
of cross-examination, or being sifted in
any way whatsoever. He could see no
just ground of comparison between those
two cases. The difference between the
inconvenience on the one side and on the
other, was as great as that which might
arise from pursuing a course of justice or
of injustice. He declared he could see
nothing so difficult, nothing so objection-
able, in point of justice, as stopping sud-
denly in the middle of a defence. The
learned counsel had, he believed, stated
(he knew not whether he understood him
accurately), that he had no right to de-
clare whether he meant to produce evi-
dence. He admitted that he could not
be called on to state whether any evidence
would be adduced until he had made his
statement for the defence. But ie under-
stood the learned counsel to express a
wish that he should be placed in this situa-
tion-namely, that he should be allowed
to call for an adjournment after his state-
ment, or after the examination of any
part of the evidence which he might think
proper to bring forward. Would that be
a prudent time to grant a delay ? Would
such a delay be consistent with the forms
of justice? The noble earl (Grey) had
stated, that he felt the latter proposition
to be so untenable, that, though he had
no objection to granting a delay after the
statement for the defence had been made,
yet he could not agree that a delay should
take place in the middle of the evidence.
He could not, however, perceive the
great difference between the two courses.
The very statement made by the noble
earl pointed out the great difficulty of
adopting the proceeding which he de-
clared himself ready to support; but
where, he asked, was the difference be-
tween the one proceeding and the other ?
Here was a statement to be made which
was ultimately to be supported by evi-
dence; and he contended it was not fit,
when such a statement was made, that it
should go forth to the public without the
evidence being produced along with it.
Where was'the difference, then, between
saying, I will let it go forth without
any evidence; but if any part of the evi-
dence is adduced, then the question is
over, and I will not agree to that For


his own part, he conceived that allowing defence altogether. When he said now,
the statement to be published with a he did not mean this day, but after the
portion of the evidence, was less objec- lapse of a few days, during which he might
tionable than sending it out unaccom- arrange his evidence, and shape the man-
panied by any evidence at all. The more, ner of the defence. That pause being
however, they considered the proposition allowed, he might, if he pleased, go
altogether, the more untenable it would through with the defence completely.
be found in every point. He knew of no But if, on the other hand, he conceived
case but a whole case. The case for the that an adjournment was necessary to the
prosecution was a whole case, as it refer- success of his cause, he had a right to
red to the prosecution; the case for the demand it before he entered on. the
defence was a whole case, as far as it went defence, the House having previously
to the defence. There was an opening understood that this was the only alter-
statement, the examination, cross-exami- native. But for the reasons he had given,
nation, and re-examination, of witnesses, and from the view which he had taken of
and finally the summing-up. This formed the subject, it appeared to him, that no
a whole case; it was indivisible in its argument could be adduced, and that no
nature, and could not be separated. The analogy could be stated, in support of the
course which their lordships had agreed claim that was now made for an adjourn-
to adopt-that of granting a delay before mrit in the midst of the evidence.
entering on the defence-was, to a certain The Marquis of Lansdown was anxious
extent, dangerous; but it was clearly con- to offer a few words, for the purpose of
trary to the principles of justice that the calling their lordships' attention to the or-
subdivision of a case should be permitted. der of their proceedings. As far as he
If they once allowed it, what were the knew, there was no question before the
limits to which such a practice should be House; no application had been made for
confined ? Where were the points at which delay, as he understood, by the counsel
that subdivision should cease? The more lately at the bar; and no motion had been
they looked at the proposition, the more submitted to their lordships that this
evidently would they perceive, that to House should adjourn. He knew too
act on it was wholly impracticable. They well the propriety of conduct which dis-
were willing to grant a proper delay be- tinguished the learned lord on the wool-
fore the defence was entered on. That sack, to imagine that he could think him-
he contemplated as the only proposition self justified, after the difference of opi-
that could be fairly and prudently adopt- union which had been manifested, in stat-
ed; but to agree to this subdivision of the ing any thing to counsel at the bar, with-
case, would be to commit tenfold more out an express direction from the House;
injustice than could be effected by any and he now desired to know (he hoped it
other means. He by no means wished to was not disorderly in him to do so) what
conceal from their lordships that there it was the noble earl opposite wished to
was no inconvenience, no hardship, in move should be stated to counsel in the
the course that had been adopted; but name of the House.
he would contend, as he had done from The Lord Chancellor observed, that a
the beginning, that there was no incon- motion was about to be proposed relative
venience or hardship attendant on this to the statement to be made to counsel
mode of proceeding that would not have when they were called in.
been incurred if impeachment had been The Marquis of Lansdown wished to
resorted to. Beyond this, he was bound know its purport. After a few words from
to say that the inconvenience and hard- the earl of Liverpool, his lordship pro-
ship that would be suffered on the side posed the following resolution, which was
making the application, bore no com- read by the Lord Chancellor:-
parison whatsoever to the inconvenience That the Counsel be called in, and
and injustice that would be suffered by the Counsel for Her Majesty informed,
the other side, if the proposition were that if they thought proper now to pro-
agreed to. He contended that they could ceed to state the Case of Her Majesty,
not divide the defence more than they and meant to produce Evidence, they
could divide the accusation. They must must proceed, at the close of the State.
take the whole together. Her majesty's nient of the Case, to produce the whole
counsel was fully entitled to his option, Evidence intended to be adduced, such
to begin now and to proceed with his being the usual course of proceeding ; but

Bill of Pains and Penallies

g5] against her Majesty.
that the House were willing to adjourn
for such reasonable time as the Counsel
for her Majesty might propose, in order
that when they began their Statement,
they might be able to proceed in produc-
ing their Proof at the close of it."
The Marquis of Lansdown said, that
now understanding distinctly, for the first
time, the terms of the proposition before
the House-a proposition not occasioned
by any application from counsel at the
bar, and no reason having been given to
them for proposing that such a communi-
cation should be made to counsel in this
stage of the business-he felt himself call-
ed on to state, with all humility (not be-
ing so much acquainted with the course of
proceedings in the courts below, nor in
matters of higher judicature, as many of
their lordships were), that, so far as he
was informed on the subject, a more un-
usual communication than that now pro-
posed to be made to counsel at the bar,
had never been known in any court of ju-
dicature whatsoever. He would go far-
ther, and say, that if, in answer to that
communication, the learned counsel at the
bar stated that he would not agree to
either proposition, but that he would re-
serve himself, in performing his duty to-
wards his client, to make such application
to their lordships as he might think fit at
the moment, and under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the period which might call
for that application-if the learned coun-
sel said this, he would, in his opinion, do
nothing more than discharge the duty
which he owed to his client. And he be-
lieved, that, of all the learned counsel who
were lately at their lordships' bar, there
was not one who would think it consistent
with his duty to enter into such a regula-
tion as that now proposed for their lord-
ships' adoption. A more extraordinary
proceeding never occurred in a court of
justice: such a proceeding was, in fact,
never before heard of. A proposition was
made to their lordships for the purpose of
opening a treaty, and entering into a com-
pact with counsel at their bar-with indi-
viduals selected to perform a most im-
portant duty. Surely so extraordinary a
proceeding was never before contemplated
in a court of judicature. What was pro-
posed to be done? Nothing less than
this-that the learned counsel at the bar,
who were ready to proceed-who stated
they were ready to proceed-who had a
right to proceed, on account of the situa-
tion in which the case now stood-should

SEPT. 8, 1820. [26
be told, in direct terms, You shall not
proceed unless you will undertake, in no
case whatever, and under no circum-
stances whatever-ignorant of the evi-
dence you may be able to produce, not
knowing its bearings or character-still
you must undertake to make no applica-
tion for delay." This was one part of the
question. But in what sort of a situation
was the House placed? What were their
lordships to do? Why, they were to say,
" We, on the other hand, in return for
the concession which we demand from
you, bind ourselves, say what you will,
let whatever circumstances arise, let the
varying forms of justice connected with
the case be what they may-we bind our-
selves to listen to your communication;
but, beyond that, we shut ourselves up.
we close our ears to the applications of
justice, and, by this compact between the
judges on the bench and the counsel at the
bar, the case is to be decided."-They
had heard-and he thought it was abso-
lutely disgraceful to, and unfortunate for,
the character of the Crown-of confe-
rences held, of agreements proposed, be-
tween the ministers of the Crown and the
counsel at the bar; a proceeding that had
never yet been made the subject of com-
ment in that House. It was, however, a
proceeding that had given to every re-
flecting man in this country, cause for
much sorrow and much regret. It must
have grieved every individual who consi-
dered the subject, to see the Crown of
England in such a situation-negotiating
with a subject-treating with regard par-
ticular concessions-and these very mat-
ters entertained in parliament. But he
hoped, at least, that nothing like a treaty,
nothing like a compact, nothing like a
protocol of what had been done between
the House and the counsel at the bar,
would be entered amongst their proceed-
ings as a part of that grave, solemn, and
judicial inquiry which now occupied their
attention. He must, therefore, under a
deep sense of duty, protest, for one,
against being bound by this resolution.
He, for one, would not consent to forbid
the counsel at the bar to do that which
he conscientiously thought they were per-
fectly competent to do ; neither would he
bind himself by the terms of that proposi-
tion, to act, in the course of these pro-
ceedings, in a manner which he could not
pursue without betraying his duty. He
would not consent to a motion which in
any degree would prevent him from fol-

lowing that course which at a future mo-
ment he might deem necessary.-Having
said this much with regard to the extra-
ordinary proceeding which their lordships
were called upon to adopt, he would now
advert to all the difficulties with which
the case seemed to be surrounded. He
would say, agreeing entirely in the senti-
ments of his noble friend (earl Grey),
that, navigating this sea unknown without
a chart, it was impossible for them to steer
clear of danger, let them take whatsoever
course or direction they might; but he
found this difficulty considerably aug-
mented by the particular moment at
which the matter was brought forward;
and he would say, notwithstanding what
had fallen from the noble earl opposite,
that if any such interposition as that now
before the House was thought necessary,
with a view to the supposed interests of
justice, it was incumbent on the House
to have originated it before his majesty's
solicitor-general had summed up the evi-
dence on the other side. For what was
the object of summing up by a counsel ?
Here, before he answered this question,
he would observe, that his noble friend on
the cross-bench (lord Lauderdale), the
noble earl opposite (Liverpool), and the
learned lord on the woolsack, who had in-
sisted on this particular course of pro-
ceeding, and recommended it by their
votes, had all of them, with feelings which
it was impossible that minds like theirs
would not experience, expressed their
earnest wish, hope, and belief, that
the evidence adduced at the bar would
not be allowed to make an impression
on their lordships minds. At the same
time, the noble and learned lord, in
justice and candour, found himself
bound to admit, taking a proper view
of human infirmity, that the publication
of that evidence must produce a certain
degree of impression. The learned lord
viewed this circumstance as an evil, and
expressed the greatest anxiety that the
evidence should not be allowed so to
operate; and yet, he would ask their
lordships, what was the effect of the pro-
ceeding which was recommended ? They
had admitted the comments of the soli-
citor-general on the predetermination of
adjourning the moment these comments
were closed, which was described as the
legal, the proper, and the natural mode
of proceeding. But what was the wish
of the learned solicitor-general in making
these comments ? His design evidently

Bill of Pains and Penallies [28
was, to give a bias to the case, to
strengthen that impression which their
lordships had deprecated, to point out
those parts of the case that were strong,
to pass over those that were weak, and to
give that direction to the minds of those
who heard his statements, which would
lead to a conviction that the bill was fully
supported by the evidence. Their lord-
ships feeling the necessity of adjourning,
and wishing to keep clear of any hias or
impression, should have selected an earlier
period for that purpose. But now, an
adjournment was proposed when the soli-
citor-general had closed his case, which
must produce a considerable effect during
the period of adjournment. Their lord-
ships had allowed the solicitor-general,
who would have been as able to sum up
at a future period as now-who might
have made a statement without any dan-
ger of producing an undue bias on their
lordships minds-they had permitted him
to make all his comments on the evidence,
for the express purpose of creating an
impression, if it did not exist before; and
having heard all that he had to say, having
heard every thing that could aggravate
the circumstances of the case, they ex-
claimed, this is the proper moment for
adjournment," before any observation
whatever was made on the other side in
consequence of those comments. This was
the course which, to his utter astonish-
ment, accustomed as he was to the great
candour and sound judgment of the noble
earl opposite, that he counselled them to
pursue. This was what he termed the
most equal balance of justice-this was
the most proper moment, in his idea, for
suspending proceedings in this case It
was an equality of balance coming to this
-" Hear all the evidence on oath on
one side-hear the comments on that evi-
dence-hear every thing that can be
brought together to make against that
side of the case; and, at the very moment
when the feeling intended to be raised
is wrought up to the highest pitch, then
declare that to be the best and the safest
moment, in justice to both parties, for
suspending the proceedings." They had
said, that to suspend the proceedings at
all would be to do an injustice; but, to
alleviate that injustice as much as pos-
sible, they were told that a proper and
convenient time would be selected, and
the present moment was pointed out to
them as that proper time, when the whole
weight of evidence and the whole weight

29] against her Majesty.
of comment militated against one side!
The inconvenience that might have been
produced by adopting another line of
conduct was nothing, when compared
with the gross and palpable injustice of
allowing all the evidence to come out,
enforced by the reasoning of the so-
licitor-general, calculated as they were
to create an unfavourable bias on the
public mind. What did the noble earl
think of the foundation on which his bill
stood, when he feared so much for its ul-
timate success ? It was supported by
evidence on oath--it was sustained by
the comments of the solicitor-general;
aid that which could be now alleged
against it could amount only to a mere
statement. But the noble earl seemed to
think, notwithstanding the manner in
which the bill had been supported, that
if, unhappily, it were attacked by one
day's comment on the other side, it would
be defeated; and he called out, that
the permission to make those comments,
even for a day, would be so grossly un-
just, would be such an abandonment of
all the principles of right and wrong, that
it ought not to be conceded." He
seemed to think that there would be an
end of the case, and that no man, however
sanguine his expectations might have
been, could be sure of its success under
these circumstances. The real balance
of inconveniences was on the other side,
and not on that where the noble earl
seemed to suppose it was. It was un-
doubtedly a great evil, a great inconve-
nience, that a delay of any sort should
take place ; but that delay being the in-
evitable consequence of the course which
their lordships had had the misfortune to
pursue, and which the accused party had
opposed-was it not most unfair to allow
the case for the prosecution, the evidence
in that case, and the comments on that
evidence, to go forth to the public per-
haps for two months uncontradicted?
Was it not fair that a comment at least
should go forth from the other side; not,
indeed, supported by evidence, but which
would point out to their lordships and to
the public, in what respect the testimony
for the prosecution was vulnerable? This
was all that was proposed; and, looking
to the great advantages possessed by the
other side, he conceived that it ought to
be granted.-The noble earl opposite had
spoken of making an impression by means
of the speech of counsel unsupported by
evidence; but was it to be for a moment

SPPT. 8, 1820. [30
supposed that the learned counsel at the
bar could so far forget the interests of
their client, could so far forget the sub-
stantial interests of the cause, as to make
a number of assertions which could not
be supported by evidence, and which, if
not supported by evidence, they must
know might prove fatal to their case?
On the contrary, if any difficulty presented
itself to the course proposed by her ma-
jesty's counsel, it appeared to him to
arise from an opposite cause; it arose
from the course in which their lordships
had proceeded, a course which left coun-
sel unacquainted with time, place, and
circumstances. The difficulty thus occa-
sioned, he begged leave to tell their lord-
ships, was much increased in the case of
innocence; for consciousness of guilt
could supply what their lordships had
refused. With all the difficulties which
arose from this cause, and with the ne-
cessity of counsel, as it were, feeling their
way, it appeared to him that there was
much greater danger that counsel would
fall short, and make a statement more li-
mited and more restrained than the case
might warrant; because they must be
aware, that asserting what they did not
know could be supported by proof would
prove injurious to the case they were ad-
vocating, and to the ultimate interests of
their client. He freely admitted that if,
after the examination for the defence"
should have commenced, any applicationr
should be made for delay, he felt more
strongly perhaps than the noble lord near
him the necessity of refusing such an ap-
plication, because of the multitude of in-
conveniences arising from an interruption
of a protracted examination in a long list
of witnesses-an interruption of which'
the effect might be to bring forward wit-
nesses to support what had failed in the
testimony of witnesses previously exa.
mined. But with respect to the opening
speech being made, and an interval then
occurring before any witnesses should be
called, no such objection could be made.
He would ask the noble lord opposite,
upon what ground they could be deceived
by the counsel at the bar? The noble
lord opposite could not suppose, no noble
lord who knew the nature of the case and
the character of the counsel at the bar
could suppose, that the learned counsel
could so stultify themselves, as it had been
expressed, as to decline further and pro-
tracted cross-examinations of witnesses,
on the other side, and now, with all the dif-

ficulties which surrounded them, to propose
to open the case for the defence, without
some other advantage to compensate in
some measure the disadvantages of an
opening in such circumstances. What
other advantage, then, could they propose
in return for not availing themselves of a
delay in cross-examining, than the ad-
vantage of guarding their client from the
disadvantage of all this evidence going
out to the world without one word of
contradiction, or one word of comment
on the part of the accused? They could
have no view but that proper one of
guarding the interests of their client, and
of preventing all the evidence and argu-
ments on the other side from going forth
unaccompanied with any comment or
contradiction. There could be no in-
tention of making any impression on
the minds of their lordships, or of the
public, by unsupported statements; at
least any permanent or beneficial impres-
sion could not be made for their client
by statements unsupported by evidence
on the other side. Their lordships would
give him leave to say, that in a choice of
difficulties, and in forming his resolution
as to the decision he should come to, he
could not exclude from his mind that
their lordships, while they were not to be
unmindful of the interests of the prosecu-
tion, ought to lean, if any leaning at all
existed, to the accused. He could not
exclude from his mind, that this was not
the first time that her majesty was ac-
cused without means of defence; that this
was the second time before their lordships
that the accused was exposed to charges
and accusations without any room for de-
fence. Their lordships, while they deter-
mined on the course of proceeding on the
present occasion, ought to call to their re-
collection, that the report of their secret
committee was allowed to circulate for
two months without affording any means
of contradiction to the accused. This
was a great disadvantage, to which the
accused had before been exposed. And
now it was contended, that for the second
time, evidence should go forth against
her for two months, and evidence sup-
ported upon oath, without what, in all
other cases, accompanied such sworn and
published accusations. He could not
conceive how their lordships could con-
sistently now decide that evidence upon
oath, circulated among the people, should
be left for months without any explana-
tion, contradiction, or comment. On

Bill of Pains and Penalties [32
those views he should give his vote against
the motion.
The Earl of Carnarvon allowed that
their lordships were placed in circum-
stances of great difficulty, in consequence
of their having refused to grant her ma-
jesty a list of the witnesses, and a specifi-
cation of the charges to be preferred
against her. Had that refusal not taken
place, and had a proper time been allowed
to the counsel for her majesty to prepare
her defence, their lordships would have
been enabled to proceed in a way analo-
gous to the usual forms in all courts of
justice. The unfortunate decision to
which he alluded had been the fruitful
parent of a multitude of evils. He was
far, however, from thinking that those
evils would be amended by adopting the
course recommended by his noble friend
who had just sat down. On the contrary,
unjust and anomalous as in his opinion
had been the refusal of their lordships to
afford a list of witnesses, and a specifica-
tion of the charges, it would be ten times
more unjust and anomalous to permit the
counsel against the bill to open the case
for the defence, and then to defer calling
the evidence by which the allegations of
that case were to be substantiated. His
noble friend had asked if their lordships
were to enter into a capitulation with the
counsel at the bar. Was not that what
they were daily doing ? With respect to
this very circumstance of delay, had it
not been already stated to their lordships
by the counsel, that if their lordships
agreed to the resolution for refusing a list
of witnesses, and a specification of the
times and places of alleged offence, two
months delay must be afforded them for
preparation, and had not their lordships,
on their part, intimated to counsel, that if
they did agree to the resolution they
would concede that delay ? That was a
pledge which their lordships had given;
counsel were now called upon to say,
whether they would avail themselves of
that pledge, or at once enter on the de-
fence. He willingly allowed the inconve-
nience of any interruption whatever, and
he admitted that their lordships were,
with reference to their former proceeding,
responsible for that inconvenience. But
the question now was, by what mode to
meet the inconveniencies of the case ?
Were those inconveniencies, emanating,
as they did, from the very nature of the
case-was the impression which it was
apprehended would be made on their

lordships and the country, from the cir- tive in that respect elsewhere. He apo-
culation of the evidence on oath, to be logized for having so long trespassed on
met by the circulation of assertions their lordships attention, but declared that
merely, on the other side of the question ? he should not have felt that he had done
Was it not probable-was it not certain- his duty to the House and to the coun-
that if the counsel attempted to go into try, if he had not expressed his senti-
the defence now, that they must, (in con- ments on the present most important
sequence, perhaps, of that ignorance of question.
which the refusal of their lordships to The Lord Chancellor begged to be al-
which he had already alluded, was cer- lowed to state the view in which he con-
tainly one cause), advance statements ceived that there had been no compact,
which would not be subsequently sustained no stipulation, with the counsel. Their
by evidence ? There was one point more lordships had authorised him to put a
which, if their lordships wished jus- question to the counsel at the bar. The
twice to be done to all parties, ought to answer to that question had not been
makeithem pause. If their lordships had given in the usual and ordinary way.
attended to what had already taken place When that was stated, and upon the prin-
in the course of the cross-examinations ciple from which he could never be re-
at their bar, they would perceive that moved, that a counsel, when he stated his
the case of the counsel against the bill case, was understood to be ready with his
would go to involve all the witnesses evidence, he conceived that the only
for the bill in a charge of direct perjury, question was, to open the defence then,
and to involve other persons, and those of or to ask delay. He had put the question
high consideration, in the still worse to the counsel in a manner which he
charge of subornation of perjury. It thought the most respectful to the House
would no doubt be stated by the counsel and to the counsel; and when the coun-
against the bill, that the whole proceeding sel said, that he was ready to open his
was a foul conspiracy, and that the wit- defence, he was thereby understood to be
nesses which had been produced at the ready with his proofs, and not merely to
bar were of an infamous and perjured circulate statements, which, by the way,
description. Now, could their lordships, if delay intervened, might be put into the
with justice to the witnesses, with justice hands of witnesses. When he stated the
to the persons he alluded to, permit such ordinary mode of proceeding, he did not
a statement to go forth and rankle for two mean to shut out deviations which might
or three months in the public mind ? be allowed in extraordinary cases. On
Unquestionably those individuals were en- special grounds, further time would be
titled to be protected from such an evil. granted in the present case; but it must
It was most important in all judicial pro- be implied that they were going on, unless
ceedings, that when a charge had been the contrary wasfully understood, on the
made, the evidence to sustain it should ordinary grounds.
be proceeded upon at once. If the Lord Calthorpe said, that differing, as
opening speech of the counsel against he did, on the present occasion, from
the bill were allowed to be made, he would many of his noble friends, he felt it ne-
rather that even a part of the evidence cessary to state the ground of his opinions
should be produced, although the rest of as shortly as he could. It appeared to
it were to be deferred, than that the whole him, that the arguments of the noble lord,
mass of libellous matter should be allowed forcible as they were, were founded on an
to circulate without either proof or dis- analogy to the courts below. He did not
proof. Such, he conceived, must be the mean to deprecate the authority of the
wish of every man who did not desire courts on the contrary, he believed, if
there was any thing that commanded res-
.spargere voces,
In vulgum ambiguas." pect and confidence in this country, it
was the administration of justice in those
He was persuaded that their lordships courts. Entertaining this opinion, it ap-
would so guard their proceedings as not to peared to him that the House, as a court
allow them to be made the channel for of judicature, should not deviate from the
such a purpose, and that they would not course of proceeding in the courts below,
allow that to be addressed to them which, but on very strong grounds, though cer-
although it would not act prejudicially tainly the House had a right to act upon
on their own minds, might be very opera- their own discretion. If there were any

against her Majesty.

SEPT. 8, 1820. [34

proof more. than another of the exercise
of that discretion by the House, it was to
be found in the extraordinary extent of
cross-examination granted to the counsel
for her majesty. Such a stretch of cross-
examination would not be allowed in the
inferior courts, and it appeared to him,
that this indulgence was granted to
counsel as an equivalent, for refusing to
them a list of the witnesses produced
against their illustrious client. Consider-
ing how sparingly counsel had availed
themselves of the power thus given to
them, it appeared to him, that the House
could not withhold the further indulgence
which they asked for, at the same time
the indulgence asked for was of so pecu-
liar a nature, and the benefit to be con-
ferred so extensive, that if granted, it
should be recorded on their Journals, so
that it might not be considered as a pre-
cedent for the future. He could not sit
down without observing, on an argument
of the noble earl opposite (Liverpool);
that noble earl had argued, that her ma-
jesty would be placed under much greater
disadvantage than she now laboured
under, if she were tried by way of im-
peachment; but he would say, that if this
were a trial by impeachment, the House
would not find itself in the present diffi-
culty, nor would her majesty have to con-
tend with the present disadvantage. He
thought the disadvantage under which her
majesty laboured was a strong argument
indeed in favour of the indulgence which
she sought; and entertaining, as he did,
a high opinion of her majesty's counsel,
he was sure that that learned and honour-
able person would not compromise his
high character by abusing their indul-
gence; he was sure that he would not, as
an advocate for the Queen, forget what
he owed to the public justice of the coun-
try. He believed that if that learned
person received this indulgence from the
House, he would consider it as an impor-
tant trust committed to his hands by their
lordships, and that he would feel himself
responsible for the execution of that
trust, not to her majesty merely but to
the House and to the public. The noble
lord said, he was persuaded that the at-
tainment of justice was the object of their
lordships ; he hoped, therefore, that they
would, on this occasion exercise their dis-
cretion; convinced he was, that they
would best promote the cause of public
justice by granting the indulgence sought

Bill of Pains and Penalties [3
Lord Redesdale lamented that tre pre-
sent proceeding had taken place at all.
He had considered the subject with much
anxiety and with the utmost attention, and
the result of his observations went to con-
vince him that the best mode of proceed-
ing would have been by impeachment.
He founded that opinion on the highest
authority, on the authority of a great man,
lord Somers, who had been the principal
instrument of bringing about the Revolu-
tion of 1688. In a trial by impeachment,
they had nothing to do but to lay down
the law, and to declare what the law was
-their judgment would be the judgment
of the law itself; but he did not see that
they had a right to make a law to meet
a particular case. It was, in his opinion,
going directly contrary to ancient statutes
and established usage. With respect to
refusing a list of witnesses, so much com-
plained of, he did not see how it was at
all possible to furnish such a list; and as
to the extraordinary course which their
lordships were now called upon to take,
he was of opinion that such a course was
impracticable and would be most mis-
chievous. They were called upon to al-
low counsel, who stood not at all respon-
sible for his statement, to make whatever
statement he might think fit, and to leave
it for a length of time under the public
eye, unanswered and unrefuted. As to
what had been said to show that the ad-
journment ought to have taken place, if at
all, before the solicitor-general summed
up the evidence, he would ask, what did
the statement of that learned person
amount to ? To nothing more than the
recapitulation of the evidence. The case
would be quite different with respect to
the statement of counsel for the Queen.
There was no balance between the two
cases-one predomifiated greatly above
the other.
The Earl of Darnley thought himself
bound to make a few observations in the
conscientious discharge of that most diffi-
cult and painful duty which, in common
with all their lordships, he had to perform.
He must confess he could attach but little
importance to what had been said by his
noble friend (the earl of Carnarvon) res-
pecting the inconvenience that would re-
sult if they allowed counsel to proceed at
present with a statement of the defence,
which would necessarily produce consi-
derable influence on the public mind.
That consideration was unquestionably an
objection to what had been said by his

7ST again her Majesty.
noble friend (the marquis of Lansdown);
but still, weighing the inconveniences on
both sides with that impartiality which all
their lordships must be desirous to evince
to both parties, he, on such a balance, was
inclined to give the indulgence asked by
her majesty's counsel. It' he understood
aright the proposition of the noble and
learned lord on the woolsack, it was, to
give one of two alternatives to counsel-
either to make them proceed now, notonly
to state the case for the defence, but also
to adduce all the evidence; or to grantat
present such delay as might be necessary
or expedient, and after that to go on with
his case. With the opinions he held, he
could not consent to such a proposition;
for if counsel preferred going on immedi-
ately to allowing the interposition of any
delay, he should say, considering this not
as a case likely to form a precedent in fu-
ture, and acting on the fair analogy of
their lordships former proceedings, that if
counsel were now compelled to proceed
and call all their evidence, the House
could not deny them such a delay as they
might require to bring forward other evi-
dence, which the difficulties of their situa-
tion might at present prevent them from
procuring. The noble earl opposite, when
he adopted a different line of argument,
appeared to have forgotten the admissions
which he himself had made on a former
occasion, in suffering counsel to break the
cross-examinations, and resume them
again at any future period that they might
choose. On every principle of analogy,
therefore, he thought they were bound to
allow the evidence for the defence to be
divided, as they had formerly allowed the
division of the cross-examinations, on a
fair case being stated to the House; and,
with this impression on his mind, he could
not vote for the motion of the noble and
learned lord. Several noble lords had
spoken of the impossibility of carrying on
the proceedings in any other than the pre-
sent manner; but he contended, that all
the evils and all the difficulties in which
they were now involved might have been
avoided, and that they had brought them
on themselves, not only by the vicious
course of proceeding to which they had
resorted, but by instituting any proceed-
ings at all. Their lordships now saw the
evils with which they were surrounded ;
and he should always state, when an op-
portunity occurred, that they had volun-
tarily brought this mischief on themselves,
and that the whole might have been, and

StPT. 8, 1820 [38
ought to have been avoided, for they were
not called upon to commence any pro-
ceeding whatever. The only consequence
that had as yet resulted from this pro-
ceeding was, that their lordships and the
country had had an absolute surfeit of
filthy disclosures, without any good what-
ever being done. In the unfortunate si-
tuation in which the House was placed,
the only consolation to him, and to those
with whom he had the honour of acting,
was, that they had given their decided,
though unavailing opposition to the whole
course of proceeding.
The House then divided: Contents,
165; Not-contents, 60. Majority for the
resolution, 105.
List of the Minority.

Duke of Glocester
St. Alban's
Earl of Derby
A lbemiarle

Vise. Bolingbroke
Lord Dc Clifford
Saye & Sele

The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.-The House has
commanded me to inform the Counsel for
her Majesty, That if they think proper
now to proceed to state the Case of her
majesty, and mean to produce Evidence,
they must proceed at the close of the
statement of the case to produce the whole
evidence intended to be adduced, such
being the usual course of proceeding; but
that the House are willing to adjourn for
such reasonable time as the counsel for her
majesty may propose, in order that when

they begin their statement, they may be
able to proceed in producing their proof
at the close of it. Will you communicate
to the House what you propose to do in
consequence of that ?
Mr. Brougham. -My lords; if by stat-
ing the case on behalf of her majesty is
meant opening the evidence which her
majesty may have to adduce in her behalf,
should she be advised to adduce evidence
at all-then, my lords, I have humbly to
submit to your lordships, that should her
majesty be advised to adduce evidence at
all, I have no wish whatever, on behalf of
her majesty to state the case, in that sense
of the word; that is to say, to expound
even one tittle of that evidence, until a cer-
tain reasonable delay shall have been
granted by your lordships; but if your
lordships will allow me, on behalf of her
majesty, to make another application, I
would humbly submit to your lordships
our claim upon the justice and indulgence
of the House, to be allowedin this present
stage of the proceedings, that is to say, at
what hour to-morrow your lordships may
think fit to appoint, to be heard to com-
ment upon the case already made out on
the other side; binding myself in the
course of that comment, not to offer to
your lordships one single word describing
or in any way opening or even alluding to
the particulars of any statement of evi-
dence which we may hereafter, after hav-
ing made our comments on the case made
out on the other side, advise her majesty
to bring forward upon her part. I trust
I have made myself understood by your
The Counsel were directed to with-
The Lord Chancellor said, that if he
rightly understood the application of the
learned counsel, it was, that he might be
permitted, to-morrow, to comment on tlhe
evidence in support of the bill without
going any further into a statement of the
defence. He considered comments on
the evidence for the prosecution to be,
in the strictest sense, a part of the state-
ment of the defendant's case; and as such
be was of opinion that this application
could not be granted consistently with
the decision to which their lordships had
come on that point. Justice to the wit-
nesses required that the value of their
evidence should be estimated, not by the
comments of counsel, but by evidence ad-
duced on the other side.
Lord Erskine asked, if they refused the

Bill of Pains ard Penalties [40
present application for the reason assigned
by the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack, why they had permitted the
king's solicitor-general to sum up the evi-
dence for the prosecution and to com-
ment upon it? Why had not their lord-
ships allowed that evidence to go forth
without such comments ? and then, after
a reasonable time had been granted, they
might have ordered the counsel for the
bill to sum up, and her majetsy's counsel
would immediately have followed with a
statement of the defence. Reflecting on
what had taken place, he could not possi-
bly conceive, on what principle of justice
their lordships could prohibit her majes-
ty's attorney general, since he was not
yet prepared to bring forward the evi-
dence for the defence, to comment on the
testimony on the other side, which had
been allowed to go abroad with the com-
ments of the counsel for the Crown. It
might be said, that such a course was un-
usual, but that was no argument against
the application of the learned counsel,
because the whole proceeding was unpa-
ralleled, and without precedent. He
should therefore move, That counselbe
called in, and told, that to-morrow her
Majesty's Attorney-General would be al-
lowed to comment on the evidence ad-
duced in support of the bill without en-
tering into any statement of the case for
the Defence."
The House divided on lord Erskine's
motion: Contents, 49; Not-contents, 170.
Majority, 121.
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.-I am command-
ed by the House to inform you of her
majesty's counsel, that you will not be al-
lowed to comment to-morrow on the evi-
dence adduced in support of the bill-
Mr. Brougham.-Without going on?
The Lord Chancellor.--Without going
on. Have you any thing to propose in
consequence of that?
Mr. Brougham.-My lords; placed in
this new and unprecedented situation, Ien-
treat your lordships to allow us till to-
morrow to form our opinions, and finally
come to a resolution of peculiar import-
ance in the management of this case.
The Lord Chancellor.-At what time
would you wish to-morrow?
Mr. Brougham.-At whatever time
most suits the convenience of your lord-
The Lord Chancellor.-Your lordships
have placed the counsel in that very si-

41] against her Majesty.
tuation which is the situation of counsel
in all proceedings in all courts. Iappre-
hend, however, you will undoubtedly feel
it perfectly reasonable to accede to his re-
quest.-I am authorized, Mr. Brougham,
to state to you, that the House will re-
ceive your answer at ten o'clock to-mor-
row morning.
The Counsel were directed to with-
draw, and the House adjourned.

Saturday, September 9.
The order of the day being read for the
further consideration and second reading
of the bill, intituled An Act to deprive
her majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of
the title, prerogatives, rights, privileges,
and exemptions of Queen Consort of this
realm, and to dissolve the marriage be-
tween his majesty and the said Caroline
Amelia Elizabeth ;" and for hearing Coun-
sel for and against the same ; the Counsel
were accordingly called in.
The Lord Chancellor.-The House is
desirous to know from you of counsel for
the Queen, what course you wish to
Mr. Brougham.-My lords; her ma-
jesty's counsel deemed it their duty, be-
fore answering the question of which they
had notice yesterday, to wait upon her
majesty last night, which they all did,
with the exception of my learned friend,
Mr. Williams, who concurs with us, how-
ever, in opinion, and who is gone upon
professional duty to York.-We commu-
nicated to her majesty the decision which
your lordship communicated to us at the
bar yesterday; namely, that your lord-
ships would not permit us to be heard at
present to comment upon the case as made
out against the Queen. We have received
her majesty's commandsto informyour lord-
ships, that we shall be ready to proceed, as
speedily as possible, to answer the case
made out for the bill, and to tender that
in defence of her majesty; but as this will
require a few days preparation among the
professional gentlemen entrusted with her
majesty's defence in the different branches
of the profession, we have, on her ma-
jesty's part, to beg your lordships to have
the goodness to grant us that short delay.
Her majesty's anxiety to proceed con-
tinues unabated: it is rather, as your lord-
ships may perhaps expect, increased, by
some of the parts of the case against her;
and, yielding to that very natural, and I

SEPT. 9, 1820. [42
should humbly take leave to add, that
praiseworthy feeling in her situation, the
Queen, is desirous that the delay may be
as short as possible. I rather exceed than
fall short of the limits which her majesty
wishes to put to that delay, when I ask
your lordships to allow us to somewhere
at or about Monday fortpight for that
The Counsel were directed to withdraw:
The Earl of Liverpool stated, that when-
ever it was determined t&enter upon the
defence, the time ought to be such, as, in
the opinion of the parties who had to make
it, afforded them an ample opportunity for
every full and necessary preparation.
That time, however, ought to be left
solely and entirely to the discretion of the
counsel of her majesty the Queen. No
personal consideration whatever ought to
influence their lordships in the progress of
the cause. Whatever time her majesty
thought necessary to prepare her detence
ought to be allowed, without reference to
any consideration for the time which their
lordships were under the necessity of de-
voting to the consideration of the subject.
The Earl of Darnley perfectly concur-
red in the propriety of what had fallen
from the noble earl on the subject of
awaiting the time required by her ma-
jesty's counsel to prepare her defence;
but he understood the learned counsel,
when he named Monday fortnight, to al-
lude indefinitely to the time. Now,
would it not be proper the learned coun-
sel should state at once a definitive period ?
Let a day be fixed when all the prepara-
tions could be arranged, and let it be as
distant as they pleased, rather than pre-
maturely immediate. He agreed that no
day ought to be named which the learned
counsel did not deem perfectly convenient
and suitable. Their lordships were bound
not to attend to their own personal conve-
nience; but still he thought a positive day
ought to be fixed.
Earl Grey entirely agreed in what had
fallen from the noble lords who preceded
him, that they were bound primarily to
consider the convenience of her majesty
the Queen. He hoped, however, that it
would not be deemed indecorous for him
also to put in some minor claim in behalf
of the convenience of their lordships. It
was quite impossible that their lordships
should not feel much inconvenience by an
absence from their families at this period
of the year. For himself, he attended at

the greatest possible personal inconve-
nience; but he could never, on that ac-
count, neglect his public duty. What he
rose to suggest at present was, indeed, of
a similar nature to that which had been
so properly put by his noble friend;
namely, that a definitive day should now
be mentioned for entering upon the
Queen's defence. If Monday fortnight
were not likely to be positively sufficient,
he trusted their lordships would be allowed
a much more remote day. After so long
an absence from their private business,
and indeed also after such an interruption
of the other public business of the coun-
try, the time now fixed upon ought to be
such as would enable their lordships to see
when they might ultimately have a pros-
pect of attending to their own personal
affairs, or else that opportunity should be
now afforded them before they entered
further into the present business. He
hoped, therefore that Monday fortnight
would be peremptorily fixed, or that a
more distant day would be decided upon ;
as the interval proposed was too short to
allow him and others, whose residence was
at a great distance from town, any oppor-
tunity of attending to their private affairs
in the country.
The Earl of Liverpool concurred fully
with the noble earl; but their lordships
must still bear in mind, that their pro-
ceeding in this stage of the business ought
to be entirely governed by the convenience
of her majesty and her counsel. The idea
of personal convenience to themselves
their lordships were bound to banish from
their minds, though he was not insensible
how severely this duty must necessarily
press upon their lordships. Independently
of the convenience of the Queen, there
was one person whose convenience he
thought their lordships were bound to
consult, namely, the noble and learned
lord who sat on the woolsack. The situa-
tion of that distinguished person was such
as to impose upon him public duties which
could hardly be said to give him any re-
pose. His duties did not, like those of
other judges, give him leisure when his
court was up; for he had, even in what-
ever momentary retirement he could
snatch, to toil over the business of his
official situation. If no personal conve-
nience were sought after by her majesty's
counsel, most certainly none ought to be
looked for even by the noble and learned
lord on the woolsack; but if any conve-
nience could be looked for after that of

Bill of Pains and Penalties [44
the Queen, he thought it ought to be that
of his noble and learned friend, at his
period of life, and considering his pressing
and most harassing avocations.
The Lord Chancellor expressed his
gratitude for the disposition manifested
towards him, but he felt it to be his duty
to state, that no personal consideration
should be suffered to weigh with him for a
moment in a matter of this sort. He
should be ready at the earliest period that
would suit their lordships, to discharge,
to the best of his power, the most painful
duty that devolved upon him on this occa-
sion. He could not but feel uneasiness
under any circumstances, when contem-
plating the business before their lordships,
but that uneasiness would be augmented;
if any delay in the proceedings were suf-
fered to take place on his account.
The Earl of Lauderdale thought, that,
on an occasion like the present, it was his
duty to forget all considerations of his
own private or personal convenience. He
was confident their lordships participated
in this feeling. He wished the counsel at
the bar to state whether it would suit
them that the period fixed for the re-as-
sembling of the House should rather ex-
ceed than fall short of the time that had
been named.
Earl Grey suggested, that her majesty's
counsel should be called in and asked,
whether they would be ready to proceed
on Monday fortnight, without inconve-
nience or detriment to her majesty's in-
The Earl of Harrorvby remarked, that
the Queen's counsel had asked for time
till at or about Monday fortnight. Their
lordships ought to know precisely on what
day her majesty's legal advisers would
certainly be ready to proceed with the de-
fence. From their having proposed that
the trial should be resumed at or about
Monday fortnight, he was led to think
they considered it probable that they
might be ready to proceed on that day,
but not quite certain. In case they were
not quite certain that they should be ready
on that day, it might be for the conve-
nience of the House that the period of
their re-assembling should be fixed for a
few days later, so that they might be ab-
solutely certain of going on with the de-
fence when they at length met. He did
not say that it might be necessary to add
a week to the delay called for, but per-
haps it would be advisable to name some
intermediate day.

45] against her Majesty.
Earl Grey begged to move their lord-
ships, that her majesty's counsel should be
called in, and asked if they could state
that they should be prepared to proceed
on Monday fortnight.
The Earl of Liverpool thought they
ought to take up the learned counsel's
own words, and ask, in the first instance,
what had been meant by at or about
Monday fortnight?" He recommended
that this question should be forthwith put,
as this phrase at or about" rather ap-
peared to mean more than less than a
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.-Mr. Brougham;
you are understood to have used the
words at or about Monday fortnight."
You are desired to explain what you mean
by the words at or about Monday fort-
Mr. Brougham.-If your lordships will
give me leave, I will say this-We were
very unwilling to take upon ourselves to
fix, as it were, the precise day; wishing
to yield ourselves, as far as we could con-
sistently with our duty to our client, to
the convenience of your lordships; which
would be always the more a rule to us,
the more your lordships desired to con-
sult our convenience. But, my lords, I
have no objection now to state to your
lordships, that although her majesty is
very anxious, from motives which I think
will be duly appreciated by your lordships,
to proceed at the very earliest day, I will
take upon myself to say, as her law ad-
viser, in which I believe I have the con-
currence of all my learned friends near
me, and of that most respectable person,
Mr. Vizard, who is her solicitor, and
whose information upon a question of this
sort your lordships know is almost of more
importance than that of any other person,
considering the branch of the case which
is entrusted to him-I will take upon my-
self, after such advice and information,
humbly to submit to your lordships, that
Monday three weeks, the second of Oc-
tober, would be that which would be suit-
able, if it should be found consistent with
the convenience of your lordships.
Earl Grey said, that the period men-
tioned by the counsel for the Queen was
so very inconvenient to him, that he feared,
from the nature of his private engage-
ments, he should be under the necessity
of applying to the House for leave of ab-
sence upon that occasion.

SEPT. 9, 1820. [46
Lord Melville could not but think that
the period of three weeks was as incon-
venient a term as possibly could be. He
really hoped that if the House were dis-
posed to grant such delay, they would
grant a period something longer.
Lord Erskine.-My lords, I hope that
my noble friend who sits by me, will re-
consider the application which he has just
made to your lordships, because it would
be most painful to me to resist it, which I
should feel myself bound to do. I cannot
state in his presence the value I put upon
his attendance on all occasions in this
House, and even if he were absent it
would be unnecessary, as it must be equally
felt by every one of your lordships. I
hope it will not be considered as any
breach of that friendship I have so long
felt for him, if I should divide the House,
if any such motion should be made.
The Earl of Liverpool conceived, that,
after what had been stated by the counsel
for her majesty the Queen, he could not
think her anxiety ought to cede to the
convenience of any noble lord.
The Earl of Darlington was satisfied
that nothing more inconvenient than the
adjourning for the period of three weeks
could have been proposed to the House ;
and, if their lordships at all consulted
their own convenience, the motion would
never be assented to. It would be recol-
lected by their lordships, that when the
counsel for her majesty was asked by the
House, after the solicitor general had
concluded, when he should be ready to
proceed with his defence, he replied
,' forthwith." It was therefore most ex-
traordinary that her majesty's counsel
should have altered their course so sud-
The Earl of Liverpool could not agree
with the noble lord who spoke last, in the
view he took of the subject. He under-
stood that the sole purpose for which the
House this morning met, was to consider
what delay the counsel for the Queen
should require. When Mr. Brougham
said, that he wished the House to meet
again "at or about a fortnight," from
the present time, he understood him to
mean that that was the shortest possible
time, on account of the Queen, that her
defence could be proceeded in. But on
consulting with her other legal advisers,
and above all with her respectable soli-
citor, he was of opinion that three weeks
was a period, at the expiration of which
he was more certain of being able to pro-

ceed without interruption; as such, his
lordship said, he should consider three
weeks the period now fixed.
Lord Falmouth said, that residing as
he did at a great distance from London,
and having business which made it very
material to him individually that he should
be in the country at the period which had
been last mentioned by the learned coun-
sel for her majesty, he nevertheless en-
tirely concurred with the sentiments ex-
pressed by the noble lord at the head of
the Treasury, as to think that all private
business should yield to the convenience
and the claim of her majesty, as stated by
her counsel at the bar. When he said
this, however, he felt desirous of express-
ing the earnest hope he entertained, that
the learned counsel would not ask for fur-
ther time, after the period in question
should expire, without a good and satis-
factory reason. He did not mean to say
that such a reason might not arise, but he
thought that it would be most vexatious
to noble lords who, like himself, might
reside at a distance from London, if after
having, from their sense of paramount
duty, so readily assented to the request of
the learned counsel for a delay of three
weeks, perhaps the most convenient one
to them that could have been proposed,
they should find the defence was not then
to proceed. He therefore did hope it
was to be thoroughly and clearly under-
stood, that, without some satisfactory and
conclusive reason, and one which could
not now be foreseen, no further delay in
proceeding upon the defence of her ma-
jesty was to be proposed.
Lord Rolle said, that after counsel had
at first mentioned a fortnight, he was ra-
ther surprised to hear them ask for three
The Duke of Athol said, that the ques-
tion of the time of re-assembling lay en-
tirely with her majesty's counsel. The
House merely wanted to know the day to
which they thought it necessary the de-
fence should be postponed. It was of no
consequence where a noble lord resided,
whether in Middlesex or Aberdeen; it
would be his duty to attend on that day.
At present an adjournment of three weeks
was proposed; an interval which he hoped
would enable noble lords to refresh them-
velves after the fatiguing business they
had gone through. But after sitting so
long as they had done, and enduring no
common portion of trouble and fatigue in
getting through one side of the case-he

Bill of Pains and Penalties [48
thought the counsel should be required pe-
remptorily to declare on what day certain
they would be ready to proceed with the
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.-The House un-
derstand that you are assured you will be
able to proceed on Tuesday three weeks.
Mr. Brougham.-Without any doubt,
my lords. I fixed the very latest date I
dared. It gives me great uneasiness to
fix this day, or to ask your lordships to
fix this day, on more accounts than one.
It is extremely inconvenient to all the
learned counsel, for it is the first day of
the sittings at Guildhall, but we cannot
help it. It is we who have fixed it-not
the Queen.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor then put the
question, and it was ordered, that the
House do adjourn to Tuesday, the 3rd
day of October next.
The Counsel were again called in.
The LordChancellor.-Before the coun-
sel leave the bar, 1 wish to ask again, whe-
ther there is any objection, on the part of
the counsel on either side, to the examin-
ing lord Frederick Montague, who is
abroad, and who is named as a witness for
her Majesty, in some manner by com-
mission, that her majesty may have the
benefit (,f that evidence without his lord-
ship coming here; which I understand he
is incapable of doing.
The Earl of Liverpool.-I trust your
lordships will seriously consider this, be-
fore it is determined that such a proceed-
ing should take place in a case of a penal
character. I should humbly submit to
the learned counsel themselves, that it is
very desirable that no such application
should be pressed. I have no divided
opinion upon it, as a matter of law: I
wish to hear the opinion of others; but I
cannot help saying I have a very strong
The Lord Chancellor.-I thought it my
duty to mention to your lordships, that
such an application had been made. It
cannot be assented to, unless it is con-
sented to on both sides-whether, with
the consent of the counsel at the bar, it
should be assented to is a matter for your
lordships.-Mr. Attorney General, there
are two witnesses who have been named
to attend on the part of her majesty, lord

49] against her Majesty.
Frederick Montague and Mr. William
Burrell It is stated to the House, that
from the state of their health, it will be
impossible for them personally to attend.
Do you consent or object to an examina-
tion out of the House ?
Mr. Attorney General.-My lords; I
feel myself placed in a very delicate situa-
tion, in consequence of the application
which your lordships have just made to
me. I am directed by your lordships to
produce the evidence at your lordships'
bar. I therefore must confess that I
hardly feel myself authorized to give a
consent to this application. If it shall
seem to your lordships meet, under the
circumstances-if it shall appear to your
lordships, that this is an application that
ought to be granted-under those cir-
cumstances, I shall be bound to give it:
but I apprehend it is rather for your lord-
ships to consider, whether the circum-
stances are such as to induce you to take
this extraordinary mode of proceeding, to
examine witnesses bya commission abroad,
and not to have their depositions vivd
voce at your lordships' bar.
The Lord Chancellor.-It appears to
me, my lords, that is all the answer the
attorney-general can be expected to give.
He is directed to produce the witnesses at
your lordships bar; and it must be for
your lordships to decide whether you will
depart from the usual course.
The Counsel was directed to withdraw.
Lord Holland thought no such com-
mission should be granted, unless it could
be justified by some analogy in the prac.
tice of the courts below in criminal cases.
He doubted much whether any such ana-
logy could be shown.
The Earl of Rosslyn observed, that the
observations which had last fallen from
the attorney-general, placed the question
in quite a new situation. It appeared
from what he had said, that he considered
himself as no party in the case, but as the
servant of the House, thus making their
lordships the parties prosecutors to the
bill. If the granting of the commission,
therefore, were to be a question depend-
ing on the consent of the parties, the
House would, in fact, be the parties, and
be thus both parties and judges. He
trusted the House would take care how
they involved themselves in any such ano-
malous proceeding.
The Lord Chancellor.-I mentioned to
your lordships the other day, when I took
notice of this matter, that there were in-

SEPT. 18, 1820. L-
stances-which undoubtedly there are in
civil cases-of a reference of this sort
being had by consent of parties to exa-
mine witnesses by commission. With re-
spect to criminal proceedings, my lords, I
am not stating to your lordships that upon
which I can much'rely, when I state, that
I know of no instance; because I have
not been much concerned, either as coun-
sel or judge, in such proceedings. There
may possibly have been, in some in-
stances, by consent of parties, such exa-
minations, but if there have been, I believe
them to have been extremely rare. Your
lordships will recollect, that with a view
of enabling you to do justice, as well as
justice could be done, with reference to
witnesses who were abroad, that by act of
parliament this was directed in the case of
the India Bill; but that, I apprehend,
proceeded on a feeling of the necessity of
the case; and there is one circumstance
in a criminal proceeding, which undoubt-
edly is of great importance; and that is
this, that as the court has a right, and it is
the duty of the court, to inform itself by
the examination of witnesses who have
been examined on the one part or the
other, it is impossible that the Court can
have the opportunity of doing justice so
satisfactorily, unless the witnesses are pre-
Lord Redesdale said, there was an act
of parliament which authorised the taking
of depositions by judges in the colonies,
who were empowered to put questions to
the deponent for the purpose of eliciting
the truth; so absolutely necessary did it
appear to the legislature, that the witness
should be personally examined. If their
lordships were to be guided by the prin-
ciples of that act, it would be necessary to
have a knowledge of the facts to be de-
posed to, in order that the questions might
be prepared which the judge should put
to the witness.
The application, so far as respected
Mr. William Burrell, was withdrawn.-It
was intimated by the lord chancellor, that
their lordships would, in future, adjourn
at four o'clock each day.
Ordered, That the further consideration
and second reading of the said Bill be ad-
journed to Tuesday the 3rd of October.

Monday, September 18.

lor of the Exchequer moved, "That a
Committee be appointed, to inspect the
Journals of the House of Lords, with re-
lation to thepresentstate of any Proceedings
had respecting the Bill intituled An Act
to deprive Her Majesty Caroline Amelia
Elizabeth of the Title, Prerogatives,
SRights, Privileges, and Exemptions of
'Queen Consort of this Realm, and to
Dissolve the Marriage between His Ma-
Sjesty and the said Caroline Amelia Eliza-
Sbeth;' and to make report thereof to the
Mr. Serjeant Onslow observed, that,
after all that had passed upon this sub-
ject, after the strong expressions used in
debate regarding the nature of the pend-
ing proceeding, and the opinions so in-
dustriously circulated in all quarters, it
was fit, for the honour and character of
the House, as well as for the satisfaction
of the country, that the inquiry should be
conducted with the utmost possible solem-
nity. He submitted, therefore, whether
it might not be expedient that a bill
should be brought in, to enable the House
of Commons to examine witnesses upon
oath. He did not himself feel authorized
to propose such a bill: a man so private
and unknown as he was, could scarcely
hope to have influence enough to carry it
through; but he trusted that the execu-
tive government would take the subject
into consideration.
Mr. Creevey said, he was in doubt whe-
ther he rightly understood the hon. and
learned gentleman. Within the last few
days, reports had been circulated of an
intended motion, on the part of persons
who were to be looked upon as the pro-
secutors of the Queen, to induce the
House to renounce the right it now en-
joyed, and had always possessed since it
had been a House of Commons, of exa-
mining witnesses at the bar. He was not
sure, therefore, whether what the hon. and
learned gentleman had proposed was not
intended to sound the country on the sub-
ject, and whether the suggestion had not
been made with the privity of ministers.
[Mr. Serjeant Onslow said, across the
floor, On my honour, no."] He did
not say that such was the design of the
hon. and learned gentleman, but it might
have that effect. If such a rumour were
true, and if, after having degraded the
King, the Queen, and the other House of
Parliament, ministers proceeded to de-
prive the House of Commons of its un-
doubted and most valuable privilege of

Bill of Pains and Penalties [52
examining witnesses, the degradation
would indeed be complete. Then, in-
deed, would such a motion, if carried,
operate as a proclamation for parliamen-
tary reform; for what could the people
think of a House of Commons, which,
after for ages requiring that evidence
should be given at the bar in every paltry
divorce cause, even after verdicts and
other proceedings in courts below, con-
sented, in this greatest of all divorce
causes, that no witnesses should be openly
adduced? The more speedy the steps
taken to pass here the odious measure
now before the peers, the more rapidly
and irrecoverably would the House of
Commons become an object of endless
derision and boundless contempt with the
Mr. Serjeant Onslow, in explanation,
said, that he had been misapprehended.
He perfectly agreed with the hon. gentle-
man, that were the House to forego its
privilege of examining witnesses at the
bar, in such a case as that in question, it
would degrade itself for ever. He de-
clared upon his honour, that he had never
had any communication with his majesty's
ministers, or with any other person, on
the subject of the proposition, which he
had ventured to suggest to the House,
and which proposition, so far from being
any abandonment of the privileges of the
House, as to the examination of witnesses,
was to enable the House to examine wit-
nesses on oath.
Mr. Bernal, in the present stage of the
proceedings, protested against any exten-
sion of the jurisdiction of the House of
Commons. It would be to him a subject
of the most solemn regret to see the
power of examining witnesses on oath as-
sumed by that House. Nothing could be
more dangerous to the liberty of the sub-
ject, than to invest that House with any
such inquisitorial authority. If such a
proposition should actually be made, he
did hope, therefore, that the hon. and
learned member would, on consideration,
vote against its reception, on the ground
of its tyrannical and dangerous character.
Mr. Hobhouse said, he would not be de-
terred by the reflection that the subject
might have fallen into abler hands, from
saying a few words upon it. When he
considered the fresh and increasing diffi-
culties in which the House and the coun-
try were involved, he certainly had look-
ed round with a hope that some hon. gen-
tleman of more importance than himself,

53] against her Majesty.
would have risen to endeavour to stop in
limine the proposition made by the right
hon. the chancellor of the exchequer,
namely, to inquire what the other House
of Parliament had done with reference to
a proceeding, of which that House of Par-
liament (the House of Commons) had ex-
pressed its decided disapprobation, when
it designated it as a proceeding deroga-
tory to the Crown, and injurious to the
best interests of the empire. It was evi-
dent by what motion the present one was
to be followed up. The right hon. gen-
tleman, as soon as the report of the pro-
posed committee should arrive, would, no
doubt, immediately move an adjournment.
It appeared to him, that although the
King might, in his opinion, very advan-
tageously to the country, prorogue par-
liament, yet, if parliament were to be
made to adjourn from day to day at the
will of ministers, to the great inconve-
nience of the members, and for no object
whatever of public good, those who sat
on his side of the House had better retire,
and leave all the odium of the proceed-
ings in progress and in contemplation, on
the shoulders of the hon. gentlemen oppo-
site. He particularly objected to the mo-
tion made by the right hon. gentleman to
search the Lords' Journals, because the
adoption of it would be, to record the opi-
nion of the House of Commons, that what
the House of Lords were doing was cor-
rect, and for the advantage of the coun-
try. His solemn opinion was, that so far
were the late proceedings of the House of
Lords from being advantageous to the
country, that they were fraught with the
most pernicious consequences-conse-
quences, disgraceful to the honour, and
destructive of the best interests of the na-
tion. He could, therefore, by no means
consent to any proposition which would
even imply the approbation of the House
of Commons of the proceedings of the
House of Lords. Aware, as he was, that
the forms of the House would not allow
of any allusion to what was taking place
elsewhere, yet, as those forms had been
somewhat relaxed during the last discus-
sion on this subject, lie might, perhaps,
be permitted briefly to advert to what had
recently been doing in the House of
Lords. With all proper respect, then, for
the House of Lords, he must say, that he
did not think the House of Commons
owed them any deference, when they
found the House of Lords acting in ex-
press contradiction to themselves (the

SEPT. 18, 1820. [54
House of Commons). The House of
Lords were proceeding with an inquiry
which the House of Commons had reject-
ed. The House of Lords had examined
the filthy contents of the green bag, which
the House of Commons, with disgust and
scorn, had left unopened upon its table.
Why, then, were their Journals to be look-
ed into? Why were the Commons of
England to regulate their conduct by fol-
lowing any steps which the Lords had dis-
graced themselves by taking ? For one,
he was astonished that any man of com-
mon sense and common knowledge could
suppose for a moment that the bill of Pains
and Penalties would be treated with any
thing like impartiality in the House of
Lords. He did not mean that the peers
were worse than common men, but lie did
maintain that they were not better than
common men, and that they must be in-
fluenced by those feelings in which all hu-
man beings participated. When they saw
honour and advancement on the one side,
and neglect and disgrace on the other,
there could be no doubt which they must
prefer. How fallible they were-how li-
able to the imperfections and frailties of
humanity-was sufficiently established by
their divisions. What had been the di-
visions in the House of Lords ? Was it
The Speaker interposed, and called the
hon. gentleman to order. Some allusion,
in such a case as the present, might, per-
haps, be allowable, to what might have
occurred in the other House of Parlia-
ment; but he put it to the good sense of
the honourable gentleman, whether to en-
ter into such details, as to the divisions
which had taken place there, was not an
infringement, not merely of the form, but
of the substance of the rules of the House
of Commons ?
Mr. Hobhouse disclaimed any wish to
violate the rules of parliament. He had
thought himself justified in making the
allusions which he had done on the pre-
sent occasion. He meant to refer merely
to what was perfectly notorious.
Mr. Calcraft conceived, that if the lion.
gentleman confined himself to a statement
of the divisions he would be in order, as
the House of Commons, having access to
the Journals of the House of Lords, had a
right to be informed on that subject.
Mr. Hobhouse proceeded. He had con-
sidered himself justified in alluding to
what was not only notorious, but to what
in fact had become matter of record in a

court of justice. The House of Lords
was now acting rather in judicial than in
a legislative capacity; but he was willing
to abstain, and to omit the observation he
was about to make. His own impression
-and he believed that in it he was by no
means singular-was, that there was not
the slightest chance of impartiality in the
decision of the Lords. If so, was it not
the duty of every honest man, of every
member of parliament, to do his utmost
to suppress this bill in limine? and with
this view, on the former adjournment, he
had seconded the motion of a noble lord.
The same reasons still induced him to ob-
ject to all farther proceeding in this mea-
sure in the other House of Parliament,
and it seemed to him impossible that the
nation, the King, or the illustrious party
accused, could be benefitted by its farther
prosecution. As to the nation, it had
most unequivocally and decidedly pro-
nounced its judgment against the bill. It
was said, however, that the popular feel-
ing was not deep-that the motion was
only on the surface-and that it had been
excited merely by those who were in the
habit of rousing the popular feelings of
the multitude. But might not the same
answer be made upon every occasion
where the national voice was raised ? Was
it not an excuse ready at all times to act
in direct contradiction to the wishes of the
country ? But the motion was not on the
surface; the feeling was deep and intense,
and it sprang from a love of justice and a
hatred of oppression; from sentiments that
had always distinguished and done honour
to the inhabitants of these kingdoms, and
which it was the duty and interest of the
government rather to cherish than to de-
stroy. Next, could the King (if his name
might be mentioned) be benefitted by
perseverance in this measure? Unques-
tionably not: for it was now said, that the
bill was not for the relief of his majesty,
since only that part of it would pass which
degraded the Queen, and not that part by
which she was to be divorced. What,
then, could be its possible object ? Sup-
pose the right hon. gentlemen opposite
should be cursed with the accomplishment
of their desires in this respect, in what si-
tuation would the illustrious parties be
placed ? The only result could be, that
the Queen would be proved to be a strum-
pet, and the King-what he would not
mention in that House! [Cheers]. Who,
then, would be the gainers ? for even mi-
nisters themselves must be severe suf-

Bill of Pains and Penalties [156
ferers ? Had the noble lord and his col-
leagues taken into consideration what
must, in any case, be the event? Would
they ever be able, with all their army, to
carry their bill into execution ? If they
consulted the opinions and feelings of the
lower orders, whom they were so much in
the habit of despising, they would find that
it would be impossible. But if, as the
prime minister had stated, one part of the
measure was to be rejected, why not throw
it out altogether ? Why was one clause to
be kept for the sole purpose of degrading
the King, the parliament, and the country,
under pretence (and pretence only) of de-
grading the Queen? In Gods name,
therefore, let a stop be put to all such
ruinous proceedings! What had already
come out during the inquiry ? Supposing
it true, was it to the honour of the na-
tion? And what well-wisher to the cha-
racter of Great Britain in the eyes of fo-
reign nations would not gladly witness the
termination and abandonment of the whole
measure ? The degradation was not
merely at home, but abroad-it was here,
there, and every where ; our ambassadors,
our officers, and our lawyers, had become
spies, eves-droppers, and suborners of
perjury. And, at last, to complete the
picture, the peers of England-the repre-
sentatives of noble families, and the de-
scendants of heroic ancestors-the pillars
of the state-were sent to pry into foul-
clothes' bags, and to pore over the con-
tents of chamber utensils [Cheers].
Was such the legitimate duty of a peer of
parliament? Was this the mode in which
the law-makers of the greatest country of
the world should be employed? Was it
fit that the Commons should follow such
an example ? Was this House, in solemn
mockery, to sit down to the examination
of charges rejected with disgust and de-
testation by the whole body of the peo-
ple ? He was not now speaking on be-
half of the King, the Queen, or the na-
tion ; but, even if it were severe upon her
majesty to stop at this moment, before the
opening of her defence, he still should say
" Stop, and reject this most infamous
bill." At the same time he must say, that
he did not think the Queen would suffer;
it was very well for her learned counsel
to implore a continuation, for he knew
how every thing in the end would redound
to the disgrace and confusion of her pro-
secutors; but enough had now been done
to show that the preamble of the bill had
not the slightest foundation, supported as

57J against her Mfjesty.
it had been by documents in the green-
bag, unworthy to be submitted to any man
of common sense, common decency, or
common honesty [Hear, hear]. The
national feeling was obvious from the pre-
cautions taken against it. The Lords had
literally hedged and paled themselves in
by a standing army; and in the same way
the Commons, he supposed, would be re-
quired to put themselves in garrison, un-
der the protection of the military, until,
at last the sentence was verified-" ob-
sessam curiam et clausum armis senatum."
What a figure must England cut in the
eyes of Europe, when her representatives
should be obliged to fence themselves
round with bristling bayonets, because
there was no sympathy between them and
the people! Under such circumstances,
he considered that the best course would
be that recently though unsuccessfully re-
commended by a noble lord (lord F. Os-
borne), namely, to address his majesty to
prorogue parliament, and thereby get rid
of the proceeding altogether. There was
another question to be considered. Who
was to pay for the expense of the pro-
ceeding ? He did not suppose it would
come from the pockets of the right hon.
gentleman or the noble lord opposite.
The people of England, then, were to pay
for it. The people of England Did
they wish for the proceeding? By no
means. They declared that it was most
disgraceful and infamous, and that they
wished it to be immediately stopped. An-
other reason just struck him against the
continuance of the bill. It seemed that
the House of Lords were acting as jury,
judges, and even as prosecutors, for the
attorney-general said'that he appeared by
order of their lordships. What justice
could be expected from such a monstrous
tribunal? What remained, then, for the
House of Commons to do, but to put an
end to the measure? In doing so, they
would retract nothing; for they had al-
ready pronounced its condemnation.
They would not, therefore, be disgraced.
The noble lord opposite, indeed, might
be disgraced; but as he had no reverence
for the noble lord, that consideration
would not at all affect him laughgh. All
that the House of Commons had to do,
was to go back to their original opinion,
which was, that the proceeding could be
productive only of disgrace and disaster.
The noble lord had made a fair trial of
what the investigation was likely to pro-
duce; and as it had completely failed, he

SEPr. 18, 1820. [58
might as well give it up. The whole fa-
bric had broken down under those who
had heaped together the frail materials,
and it was mere folly not to be taught by
experience. He could not divine a reason
why ministers should object to a proroga-
tion, which would save them an immense
quantity of trouble, anxiety, and disap-
pointment. A great deal had been said,
indeed, about not being intimidated by
the people; but he could see no disgrace
in being taught by experience-in with-
drawing what was most detrimental-in
being intimidated from doing what was
wrong, unjust, and injurious. On these
grounds he should move, as an amend-
ment, to leave out from the word that,'
to the end of the question, in order to add
the words, an humble Address be pre.
sented to His Majesty, praying that he
will be graciously pleased to prorogue the
The amendment having been seconded,
was put from the Chair.
Sir Robert Wilson rose. He said, that
the silence of ministers on the present oc-
casion might be very dignified, but it
would not satisfy the country. For him-
self, he would not forego the present
opportunity of declaring, that should the
bill of Pains and Penalties come into that
House, there was no resistance-no ob-
stacle-no impediment-which the wit of
man could devise, or perseverance apply,
that he would not make use of to stop its
progress; not merelybecause the measure
in its form was abominable, odious, and
unconstitutional, but because he now con-
ceived himself a competent judge of the
merits of the whole proceeding. He had
attended every day in the House of Lords
-he had heard all the witnesses-he
had listened to all that could be urged
in their favour-lie had observed the con-
duct of the judicial assembly, and he was
prepared to assert on his oath-on his con-
science before God-that these proceed-
ings had originated in a foul and infamous
conspiracy. These were hard terms, it
was true; but it was his duty, on an oc-
casion like this, to speak out, and not to
allow the best interests of his country to
suffer, lest he should give offence in any
quarter. He could adduce proof, that the
conspiracy originated, not at Milan, but
at Hanover. Could any man doubt that
when it was found that baron Ompteda,
after having executed the instructions
which he had received, to pick-locks, to
forge keys, and to steal letters, and after

having, like a coward, refused to fight the
gallant officer who challenged him, when
he returned to Hanover, was covered
with honours, and reinstated in the rank,
and paid the arrears which he had for-
feited in consequence of his conduct while
Buonapart6 was in that country ? To
the honour of the Hanoverian people,
however, they shunned him as they would
a pest. What could be said of the con-
duct of the minister at Stutgard, who vio-
lated the rules of hospitality, and who, at
the moment of the departure of the prin-
cess of Wales from his house, rushed into
her apartment, peeped into her bed-room,
negotiated with her chamber-maid, and
descended to other similar means of exa-
minations ? But, if the plot was hatched
at Hanover, it grew and was perfected at
Milan, which was made the rendezvous of
all that was despicable, and nothing was
refused that contributed in the slightest
degree to blacken the reputation of her
majesty : discarded servants were wel-
comed with avidity, and even the creation
of testimony seemed to have been encour-
aged as long as it increased the slander
and the infamy. To show the nature of
the witnesses, and the manner in which
they were rewarded and encouraged, he
had in his possession a letter from the rev.
Mr. Godfrey, regarding Sacchi, who, be-
ing hired as a courier, received from the
princess of Wales seventy Napoleons
a-year. It appeared that, while at Mr.
Godfrey's, he was not looked upon nor
treated as if he had been a menial servant,
but as a gentleman of rank, for he had a
servant of his own to attend him : be-
sides, he was called by Mr. Godfrey by
the name of Milani, which proved that he
had so represented himself: the letter, be-
sides, contained the following sentence :
-- You wish to know on what terms I
received him ; the terms were 51. per
week for himself and his servant." Thus
a menial servant, receiving in Italy'seven-
ty Napoleons a-year, coming to England
as a witness against the Queen, was al-
lowed an attendant of his own, and was
able to pay 51. per week, about 2601. a-
year, for his board and lodging alone.
Was not this very much like subornation
of perjury ? Then there was the master
of a vessel, who received, as remuneration
for his trouble, at the rate of 12,000
dollars a-year A prince-cardinal in Rome
was allowed only 14,000 dollars a-year;
and yet this captain of a polacre obtained
at the rate of 12,000 dollars a-year for

Bill of Pains and Penalties [60
his evidence. It had been said, in that
House, by a right honourable gentleman,
that either the King was betrayed, or the
Queen insulted. He (sir Iobert Wilson)
would say both. The Queen had been
insulted by the scandalous and ungentle-
manly introduction into thecharges against
her majesty of the most obscene inci-
dents, which had no connexion with the
case. The King had been betrayed, for
it was impossible that his majesty could
have been aware of the nature and the
sources of the evidence which was to be
adduced on the occasion. He had stated
his opinion thus openly, because he was
an enemy to the whole proceeding. He
had voted for accommodation, in the first
instance, as best calculated to secure the
interest of the people as well as of the
King and Queen-because he recollected
the former sufferings of the Queen-be.
cause lie was scared at the gigantic pow-
er brought into action against her-be-
cause he knew the tenderness and delicacy
of female reputation-because he knew
how difficult it was to resist nature, re-
sentment, and opportunity. But having
now heard the charges, and the evidence
brought forward in support of them, he
should be the basest of men if he did not
do all in his power to preserve the Queen
from perjured witnesses and a partial tribu-
nal. If he had a thousand lives, he would
willingly sacrifice them all, rather than see
innocence suffer and injustice triumph.
Dr. Phillimore had long ago made up his
mind not to say a single word on the
'merits of the subject, until the bill should
come regularly before the House. What
he now rose for, therefore, was, merely to
make a few collateral and explanatory ob-
servations. The gallant general, and the
honourable gentleman who preceded him,
had violated the distinct understanding
which existed on the subject, by entering
into an ex-parte statement upon it [Hear,
hear !]. He repeated, that the gallant
general had, in direct violation of the un-
derstanding to which he alluded, dragged
the House into an ex-parte statement of
what had taken place in the other House
of Parliament. The gallant general had
done this most unnecessarily [Hear,
hear !]. He appealed to all who had
heard him, if the gallant general had not
stated various details as to the competence
of the witnesses, the conduct of the judi-
cature, &c. Reluctant as he (Dr. Philli-
more) was, to say any thing on the sub-
ject, he could not refrain from express

61] against her Majesty.
ing his firm and sincere conviction, that
whatever might be the result of the pro-
ceedings, the Queen would have justice
done her. He was persuaded that neither
the House of Lords nor the House of
Commons would denounce her majesty as
guilty unless she was proved to be so. In
saying this, he begged to guard himself
from being undertsood to express any
opinion on the merits of the case. He
had not expressed any. He had not ex-
pressed any in the whole course of the
proceedings. Whenever the bill should
come down to that House, he would state
his opinion upon it, and enter into the dis.
cussion of its policy. But he was con-
vinced that justice would be done her ma-
jesty; and that she would not be falsely
Mr. Bennet said, he was desirous of an
opportunity of stating, that his original
opinion was in no respect changed by
what had recently transpired in the House
of Lords. All men, he thought, must
now feel, that day after day new and in-
creasing dangers were impending over the
country by a perseverance in this mea-
sure, and that there was no safety but in
retreat. For years ministers had pur-
sued the same system of bringing into
odium and contempt the institutions of the
country. Their last effort was the bill now
before parliament, and its introduction
would be regretted, by all who loved their
country, to the latesthou roftheir existence.
Whether the bill should pass or not, the
House of Commons, the House of Lords,
the Sovereign, all would be degraded. He
had heard the prime minister state in the
other House of Parliament, that if it were
wished by religious persons, the divorce
clause in the bill would be abandoned.
That would be to degrade both the parties.
It would be to state, that although her ma-
jesty's conduct had been too infamous to
justify her continuance in that rank, it had
not been too infamous to justify her re-
maining the wife of the King of England
[Hear, hear !]. The lion. and learned
gentleman, who had just sat down, had
said, that his gallant friend's statement was
an ex-parte one ; and he had been loudly
cheered for that declaration by the gentle-
men opposite. Yet what was the fact ?
The case against the Queen was closed;
and if a man found nothing of guilt in it,
it was the precise contrary of an ex-parte
conclusion-it was an opinion formed on
all the evidence that could be adduced
against her. Since the days of the Star-

SEPT. 18, 1820. [62
chamber-since the time when Bradshaw
sat upon the life of his king-no proceed-
ing as monstrously unjust as the present
had been heard of. The evidence had
been heard-it had been enforced in all
its bearings, and then the case had been
stopped-stopped after the beastly, the dis-
gusting, the loathsome evidence which
the attorney-general, to his own disgrace,
had thought fit to produce, had been
gone through with an odious particula-
rity. Yet this testimony, bad as it was, did
not come up to the charges, many of
which the counsel for the prosecution had
not attempted to prove, or even to ask a
witness one question regarding them. Of
the allegorical personage who employed
the attorney-general the House knew no-
thing ; who were his real clients was still
kept a mystery ; but, to their eternal dis-
grace, statements had been made at which
the blood boiled even at the recollection,
and which, till the moment he had listen-
ed to them, he did not believe that an
English gentleman would have been com-
pelled' to hear.1 All, however, was now
over, The poison had effected its mischief.
" Treason had done its worst." What
her majesty's enemies could prove, they
had proved ; what evidence they had to
bring forward, they had brought forward.
On that evidence he, for one, was per-
fectly ready to express his conviction-a
conviction that increased the more, the
more he considered the subject. When
ministers commenced their operations-
when they arrayed all their strength-
'when they sent out a special commission of
lawyers to ferret out all that her majesty
had been doing for six years (and this
was a particular injustice, since the con-
duct of only three of those years had been
impeached), he did not believe it possible
but that some misconduct would have
been proved against her majesty; he
did not believe it possible that men of the
commonest understanding could have got
into such a scrape as his majesty's minis-
ters had got into. To be sure, her majes-
ty's conduct was calculated to banish all
notion of guilt even at the outset; the
fearless way in which she laughed to
scorn her accusers-the manner in which
that heroic woman had set her foot upon
the shore of England, and, above all, the
decisive tone in which she rejected all at-
tempts at mediation between her and her
accusers, conclusively satisfied his mind
at the time, of her complete innocence.
He had, indeed, known persons die with

the expression of innocence upon their
lips, against whom guilt was but too clear-
ly proved; he had known them die with
that declaration in their mouths, for
the sake of their families, or some other
purpose ; but he had never known, and
e challenged the memory of any other
man, to say whether there had ever
existed, a guilty person who rushed to
trial instead of escaping from such an
ordeal ? Was there ever an instance of a
guilty person seeking a trial who could
have escaped from it ? He defied any man
to produce an instance of such an occur-
rence. The conduct of the Queen on the
occasion to which he alluded had satisfied
his mind of her complete innocence. He
had kept that principle steadily in his
mind, and it was impossible to recon-
cile it with the existence of guilt. His
deliberate conviction, now that the pro-
secution had been gone through, was,
that the whole was a foul and diabolical
conspiracy against her majesty; he thought
so early in the business, and now, at its
close, that opinion was most strongly con-
firmed. Feeling the danger to which the
country was exposed from further perse-
verance of any kind in such a bill as that
in question ; feeling that the present was
the strongest instance within his memory,
in which a single class, composed of the
judges in the case, were in direct opposi-
tion to all the other classes of the commu-
nity-knowing that both the army and
navy concurred in opinion with the great
majority of the people-aware that such
was the opinion of the fleet and of the
army-and, while the army was of its pre-
sent size, it was their master [loud cries
of Hear, hear !"]--he repeated, that
while the army was of the size it now
was, it was their master-and, finally, see-
ing that, upon this particular question,
these and other classes of the people
held opinions directly in the teeth of pow-
er, and in the face of his majesty's govern-
ment ;-upon all these considerations, he
could not help looking at this transaction
as one of the most dangerous and most in-
auspicious ever embarked in by any go-
vernment. The sooner it was retracted
the better for the country. He knew it
was irregular to allude to the other
House of Parliament, as a house of
parliament; but in this case it was a
court of justice, and as such he should
comment upon it as freely as he would
upon the conduct of the Court of King's
Bench, or the Court of Common Pleas.

Bill of Pains andPenalties [64
He must say, therefore, with all defer-
ence to the House of Peers, that it appear-
ed to him from the experience both of our
own and of past times, that no court of ju-
dicature could possibly be so bad. It had
been remarked, that, during the pro-
gresss of this measure, frequent allu-
sion had been made to the case of a cele-
brated English prelate-bishop Atterbury.
He was very sure, that whoever would
take the trouble of looking to bishop
Atterbury's case would see that that was a
complete party measure. All the Whigs
went one way, and all the Tories the
other, upon that occasion. The ends of
justice were neglected, and it was altoge-
ther a proceeding which did no credit to
times past, but wasrather a lasting dis-
grace tothe country. Hebelieved that the
present was the first time, and Ithe first
instance, in which there had ever been.
heard cheers in a court of justice; cer-
tainly no one ever attended at a trial
in the Court of King's Bench and
heard the judges cheer [Hear, hear !].
He might add, that this was the first
time in a court of justice, in which
counsel had been browbeaten and fre-
quently interrupted by the judges, and
attempted to be put down. It was true,
that the spirit of the counsel resisted it;
but it was not the less true that the at-
tempt to browbeat and put down was
made. This was also a singular instance
of judges putting questions which were re-
jected as illegal. It might be said, in-
deed, that this latter circumstance was ow-
ing to the parties not being accustomed
to judicial forms and accuracy ; it might
be so, but he was sure, that this was not a
tribunal before which it was quite as safe
to appear as before the twelve judges.
He had, in a few words, shown what had
been the effect of this proceeding before
upwards of two hundred judges ; let the
House reflect what would be the effect of
a similar proceeding before more than
six hundred. A right honourable friend
of his had once said, that the House
of Commons had never entered into
any inquiry, in the progress of which it
had not disgraced itself. What the re-
sult of the pending inquiry would be,
it was impossible exactly to foresee;
but he was sure, that if the House knew
their real interests and the real interests of
the country, they would adopt the pro-
posed Amendment, and get rid of the
business altogether. With this firm convic-
tion, he should vote for the Amendment.

65] A* against her Majesty.
The Attorney General, notwithstanding
the tone and temper which had distin-
guished the speeches of those hon. gentle-
men on the other side who had addressed
the House on this occasion, should not be
tempted to follow the course which they
had taken. For what did they do ? They
were aware that they were now discussing
a proceeding which was pending in the
other House; yet they came down to the
House, and gave their opinions upon that
proceeding, and endeavoured-(he must
be permitted to say, at least, that such
was calculated to be the effect of their
speeches)-by statements of what had,
and not only of what had, but of what had
not passed in the other House, to inflame
the minds of the people upon the subject.
He, for one, would not follow the exam-
ple which the honourable gentlemen had
set; but he might be allowed to say a
word or two respecting certain expressions
which had fallen from an honourable
member opposite, as directed against him,
and as reflecting on the manner in -which
he, as attorney-general, had opened the
case, and produced evidence to support
it. It had been said that the course
and conduct pursued by him had been
disgraceful, Whatever hon. gentlemen
might please to say, he should content
himself with replying, that it would have
been disgraceful in him if he had shrunk
from that line of conduct which he had
pursued. It would be seen hereafter whe-
ther the proceedings which had been taken
against the Queen were or were not justi-
fied; but he could assure the House, that,
in their present stage, he should consider
himself infinitely more disgraced if the ap-
probation of the honourable member had
been bestowed on his conduct.
Mr. Hume said, it had not been his in-
tention to trouble the House on the pre-
sent occasion, hut feeling strongly on the
question, he hoped he might be allowed
to make some observations after what had
been said. An honourable and learned
gentleman had thought fit to complain of
the conduct of the gallant officer, for bring-
ing the subject before the House in the way
le had done. He would ask, for what was the
Housenowassembled? What was the pur-
pose for which they had met? What was the
object of the right honourable the chan-
cellor of the exchequer's motion now be-
fore the House? The object and the
purpose were known to every person,
both in and out of parliament. Was his
gallant friend to be blamed for speaking

SEPT. 18, 1820. [0G
of what had taken place in the other House
of Parliament, and which was known to
the whole country? Before the learned
gentleman complained of an ex-parte pro-
ceeding on the part of the gallant officer,
he should have considered that it had been
entirely upon ex-parte evidence that his
majesty's ministers had proceeded in their
treatment of the Queen. On ex-parte evi-
dence they had attempted to degrade her.
He would ask, who had ordered the omis-
sion of her name in the Liturgy ? Who
had insulted her by the offer of a bribe to
give up her constitutional rights? Who
had refused her a ship to bring her to this
country ? Who had refused her a house
to put her head into on her arrival? Who
had refused her even a carriage? Such
was the conduct of the ministers towards
thisinjured and oppressed Queen! [Hear,
hear !]. His learned friend would have
done much better, and have acted more
reasonably, if he had complained of that
conduct every way ex-parte, which had
been adopted towards her majesty. He
could not, therefore, avoid saying, that
the observations of the honourable and
learned gentleman upon the conduct of his
gallant friend did appear most unwar-
ranted, and, to say the least of them, were
uncalled for, and to a great extent they
appeared partial. From one who takes a
great share in, or conducts the proceed-
ings of a court of justice, he should rather
have expected a leaning towards the
Queen, who really had that cause of com-
plaint which the learned gentleman was
too hasty in charging to the other side.
The learned gentleman had that night
taken the part of the accuser against the
accused-of the strong against the weak.
He had expected to have seen him rather
favourable towards the case of the accused
party, opposed as that party was to all
the terror and all the influence of power
[Hear!]. He (Mr. Hume) did not hesi-
tate to say, that he did believe, with the
gallant general, that this was one of the
foulest and most disgraceful conspiracies
which was ever formed. When he saw
the name of his majesty, the King, dis-
graced as it had been in the persons of his
ambassadors in foreign countries-when
he contemplated the measures that had
been taken to forward this proceeding-he
could not come to any other conclusion
than that which he had just expressed.
He could, however, by no means agree
with his honourable friend (Mr. Hob-
house) in the amendment now proposed

by him, because he thought it would be
a great injustice to her majesty to stop the
trial now when the whole of the case
against her was before the nation, it was
duetoher, that nosuch intervention should
take place. The evidence had done its
worst; yet there was a very general feel-
ing, from one end of the country to the
other, in favour of her innocence; in
which he most solemnlyconcurred [Hear,
hear!]. There might be persons who
thought differently, and of those probably
was the learned individual who had summed
up the evidence for the prosecution.
But he must observe, that that learned
gentleman had thought fit to make state-
ments and observations which the evidence
did not warrant or bear him out in doing,
any more than it did the opening state-
mient of his honourable and learned col-
league (the attorney-general), He con-
curred with his honourable friend (Mr.
Bennet) that that honourable and learned
gentleman had disgraced himself by the
statements he had made in that speech.
He meant no personal reflections, which
were not at all necessary, beyond what
the attorney-general's conduct in this af-
fair obliged him to make. In his official
situation, it was his duty not to have made
any statement which he did not think
could be substantiated by evidence. But
his conduct had been very different. He
would only state one instance, and ask
the honourable and learned gentleman,
why he had dared to accuse the Queen of
anadulterousintercourse for six years, and
not prove it for more than three [A laugh,
and cries of Hear, hear!] Gentlemen on
the other side might laugh ; but he (Mr.
Hume) had only stated their own case, at
which they had laughed. He could not
be supposed to have admitted that that
charge had been proved, as he had set
out by stating, that he disbelieved it
But the object of stating this to the
House was, to show, that the attorney-ge-
neral had disgraced himself by laying such
an accusation against her majesty which
applied to a period of six years, whilst he
had not only not proved, but had not even
attempted to prove his charge for a longer
period than three years. The solicitor.
general had, therefore, also disgraced
himself in an extraordinary manner, by
observing, when he summed up, thai
every thing which had been charged b3
the attorney-general in his opening speech
had been distinctly proved by the evi
dence adduced; although this very im.

Bill of Pains and Penaltiep [68
portant fact was staring them in the face!
Was not this disgraceful conduct? He,
therefore, entirely concurred in the opi-
nion of his hon. friend, and he would re-
peat it, that he considered the official con-
duct of the hon. and learned gentleman
disgraceful. He could not agree that the
proceedings should now stop, although it
was certain that, notwithstanding the nu-
merous details and disgusting statements
that had gone forth, and the moral poison
which had deluged the country, the feel-
ings of the nation towards her majesty,
far from being damped, was manifestly in-
creased. He must call the attention of
the House to what had fallen from the no-
ble lord (Castlereagh) at the last meeting
of the House, as he (Mr. Hume) had par-
ticularly observed at the time and had af-
terwards applied his observations to ac-
count for the publication of such disgust-
ing evidence. That noble lord then ad-
mitted the extent of the public feeling
and irritation at the mode of proceeding
against the Queen," and he had added,
let the trial proceed, let the evidence
go forth, and he was confident the public
mind wouldbe satisfiedand tranquillized."
Such were nearly, if not the exact words
which the noble lord then used; and he
would nowask any person who had witnes-
sed the scenes which hadlately taken place
out of doors, he would ask the noble lord
himself, whether the feelings of the public
had been tranquillized ?j On the contrary
had not the generous feelings of the Eng-
lish people risen in favour of her majesty,
in the same proportion that infamous and
incredible charges had been poured out
against her? Her prosecutors had gone
through their case-they had done their
worst-they had exhausted all their power
-and now, on this ex-parte case, he would
say, that if he were a juror, he would, be-
.fore God and his country, acquit her ma-
jesty of all the charges that had been
brought against her. He the rather said
This now, because, although he was the
First person in this House to mention her
majesty's name, he had been extremely
cautious not to prejudge her case. He had
carefully refrained from expressing an
opinion one way or the other, until the
I prosecution had closed. He would can-
Sdidly confess that he had (with his hon.
t friend) expected when ministers did ven-
rture to bring forward charges of so gross
Sa nature against her majesty, that they
Should, at least have attempted to support
them by the testimony of credible wit.

69] against her Majesty.
nesses from Italy, and that they would
have endeavoured to do so also, by Eng-
lish witnesses! He did, from the proceed-
ings, expect that some damning facts as
they might call them, would be brought
against her. But what had been the result ?
It had been charged that this adulterous
intercourse of the Queen had been of the
most open and glaring kind-of the most
public and notorious nature. If so, he
would ask, on what authority these asser-
tions rested, and why they had not been
proved by respectable testimony ? Why
did they insult the country with such wit-
nesses when they had other respectable
Italians and Englishmen who were with
the Queen to produce? and they ought
to have been produced on the trial if such
conduct had really taken place. The
witnesses produced were not only of the
lowest and basest classes, but ministers
had recourse to the miserable subterfuge
to have it believed, that they had been
compelled by their respective governments
to come to England to give evidence.
Why had foreign governments been so
officious in this affair? The reason might
be easily supposed. He had no doubt on
his mind but that the Queen would most
satisfactorily refute all the falsehoods al-
leged against her-would clearly expose
the foul conspiracy that had been formed
against her life and her honour, provided
that she had justice done her. He said,
" if justice were done her;" for while, in
the course of the pending proceedings it
appeared in evidence that the ambassadors
of England and foreign states were acting
in the capacity of spies and agents, col-
lecting every foul tale, and giving every
facility in their power to the witnesses
against the Queen, he knew, and it would
be proved, that they were throwing ob-
stacles in the way of the witnesses con-
cerned for the Queen. He held in his hand
a letter upon which he thought he could
repose the utmost confidence, in which it
was stated, that Mr. Henry who left this
country admitted and recognized by his
majesty's ministers as the express and ac-
credited agent for examining and mar-
shalling evidence for hermajesty, in order
to refute the specific facts charged, had
been much impeded in his mission-that
vexatious impediments as to passports
and otherwise, had been thrown in the
way of this officer, who was known to be
acting for the Queen. This he believed
to be the fact, and that it would be proved
that four of the witnesses who had ten-

SEPT. 18, 1820. [70
dered their evidence and agreed to come
to England, had been, through the ma-
chinations of colonel Brown, prevented
from coming, and had actually declared
they would not come [Hear !]. He
must not state what were the means sup-
posed to have been employed for that pur-
pose; but, after these facts, could any
one talk of the impartiality observed in
this case, when in every thing the most
unjustifiable partiality was shown against
her majesty ? While it now become every
one to wait the issue of these proceedings,
he confessed that he did not think the
House of Lords would find the Queen
guilty. He was satisfied they would not
do so, were they to judge only by the
present evidence; but, above all, they
would not do so, when her majesty's evi-
dence should be brought to rebut the
charges now made. When these proofs
should be adduced, he felt confident that
this House would never be troubled with
the bill. Under these circumstances, he
was against the amendment of his hon.
friend ; because he thought that her ma-
jesty ought to have an opportunity of re-
butting the evidence now against her ; and
he hoped that her majesty's witnesses
would be afforded every facility to come
to England for that purpose. He would
ask the noble lord (Castlereagh) whether
any orders had been given, or measures
taken, to retain in this country until the
close of the trial those persons who had
been produced as witnesses against the
Queen ? He understood that one of them,
Rastelli, had been seen on his route to
Italy, no doubt for the purpose of being
employed to prevent such individuals as
he might know from coming. He had
been actively employed to collect evi-
dence for the prosecution; and it was fair
to infer, that his business now was to pre-
vent evidence for the defence. If so, what
justice had her majesty to expect? And
here, by the way, he might be allowed to
ask, who Rastelli was ? He was a stable
boy or helper originally, in the service of
her royal highness; but, since his em-
ployment by the Milan commission, he
had become a gentleman. So had all the
witnesses hired against her. They had
been cherished and had lived on the fat of
the land La laugh!] ; whilst those dis-
posed to speak in her favour had been
discouraged and intimidated. When fo-
reigners were given to understand, that
they would give offence to the govern-
ment if they should come to give evidence

in favour of the Queen, and would meet
with suchimpediments as he complainedof,
could it be any wonder if they manifested
an unwillingness to come ? Theprosecutors
had money to give, had offices to promise;
but the Queen had neither He repeated
and was convinced, that if justice were
done her, every charge made against her
would be refuted. He believed the whole
of this conspiracy to be as foul as ever dis-
graced this country; and he hoped that
it would terminate in the disgrace and
confusion of its authors. He thought his
majesty's ministers, and those who acted
with them, the Bishops, should be
cautious what they did in this case, under
pretence of protecting the honour of the
Crown and the morals of the country.
Let them look at the conduct already
pursued, and what its consequences might
be. Every honourable member, he
thought, would agree with him, that the
moral poison circulated by means of the
evidence of these wretched Italians,
greatlytended to demoralise the country-
that that disgraceful and filthy evidence
would do more injury to public morals
than the misconduct of two queens three
years ago in a foreign land could, on their
own showing, have effected [Hear, hear!].
So little, indeed, was known of her ma-
jesty, that no individual had been found
to state one fact against her for the last
three years! If, then, her misconduct
had been so private, so little known, how
would her example be pernicious ? Where
was the state necessity for such a proceed-
ing ? To talk of state necessity, therefore,
in this case was clearly the vilest and most
hypocritical cant in the world. The pro-
ceeding was, in fact, as unnecessary as it
was disgraceful; and if justice should
be done, it would be proved that the whole
had originated in a foul conspiracy. He
earnestly hoped that, in that event, mea-
sures would be taken to inquire into the
magnitude of the offence, and that every
person implicated would be brought be-
fore the House, and impeached for their
conduct; but, above all, he thought
ministers ought to be the first objects of
impeachment [Hear, hear!]. Not that
he thought his majesty's ministers were
the original inventors or framers of that
foul conspiracy; but because they had
adopted and brought it forward to agitate
the public mind at this present time-by
which public misfortune, they had done
more to disgrace majesty, and to degrade
the dinit v of the throne, than any thing

Bill of Pains and Penalties [72
which had, in his recollection, been before
effected. He would venture to say, that
all the meetings termed seditious,"
which had taken place of late years, and
which his majesty's ministers had in many
instances punished by death or transporta-
tion, had not done half the real harm and
mischief which this measure of theirs had
caused to the country whether he viewed
it morally or politically. He repeated
that this conspiracy should be strictly
examined, and every part thoroughly
sifted. If justice were to be done alike
to the high and the low, which the laws
prescribed, why should weaversbe hanged
for endangering the throne, whilst minis-
ters escaped the same offence with im-
punity? [loud laughter]. He would re-
peat his conviction, that this proceeding
would prove highly injurious to the cause
of royalty, whilst it rendered us the
laughing-stock of Europe! He believed
that at this moment foreigners laughed at
this country when they saw a single
woman put at defiance the government,
supported as it was by the Holy Alliance,
and by all means good and bad in their
power; whilst, on the other hand, her
majesty was deprived of the means, and
impeded in bringing over witnesses in her
behalf [Lord Castlereagh signified his
dissent]. He would, notwithstanding the
dissent of the noble lord, assert, that diffi-
culties had been thrown in the way of the
Queen's witnesses, which had not occurred
to her prosecutors, and that the same
would be proved. The conduct of the
ministers, sanctioned as it was by the
bench of bishops (with one or two ex-
ceptions) deserved neither respect nor
support. It was injurious alike to the
honour of the monarchy, and to the cause
of the church. They were well aware of
the enormous expenses of the church
establishment under the plea of public
good; and he would not refrain from
adding, that the millions which it cost
were not necessary for the morals of the
people. He would caution the gen-
tlemen of the higher clergy, however, to
take care how they took away the corner
stone of such a fabric-how, by forfeiting
the public respect, they meddled with the
established religion of the country. The
people of England might see that, as in
Scotland, morality and religion might be
promoted without the assistance of bi-
shops-might be upheld without the great
expenses of a church hierarchy.
They had heard in that House the

73J against her Majesty.
most veementit declamations against
radicals as they were called; but his ma-
jesty's ministers were the most violent of
radicals. Their innovations and danger-
ous attacks on the constitution and reli-
gion of the country were doing much
more to disgrace the character of the bi-
shops, to degrade that of the peers, and
to endanger royalty. These were the
ministers whom he thought in justice
ought to be impeached; and if he pos-
sessed the requisite abilities, he should
consider it his duty to bring them before
the House. Facts which had come out in
evidence proved to what shameful lengths
this prosecution had been carried-proved
the subornation of witnesses proved
the improper interference of colonel
Brown, as well as our ambassadors at
Venice and other courts. But, let us,
however, wait until her majesty's witnesses
give their evidence, and show in proper
colours the nature and extent of these
transactions. He was surprised that the
bishops, whom the people were accus-
tomed reverently to look up to as patterns
and protectors of the public,morals, should
not have dissented from a proceeding
which would pull down the corner stone
of that edifice on which their power prin-
cipally rested-a proceeding which went
to dissolve the most sacred of ties-a
proceeding directly contrary to the laws
of God and man-a proceeding not the
less revolting to constitutional feelings,
because the ministers had stated, that the
clause for the divorce might be with-
drawn.-He maintained, that the ministers
had done much to degrade royalty, and
to disgust a high-minded, and a generous-
hearted people. But, nevertheless, he
would intreat his honourable friend
not to persevere in his amendment;
because that motion, if successful, would
deprive her majesty of the opportunity of
rebutting the evidence against her. It
was of the last importance to her, that the
cause should be fully heard, and that
every charge should be clearly refuted.
He was convinced that her majesty's in-
nocence would then be admitted by those
who now thought her guilty, even by those
very sceptical persons who thought they
saw an adulterous intercourse in every
motion of her majesty [A laugh]. He
was anxious that those who had been led
astray by party feelings should be con-
vinced of their error, and recover their
true British generosity-that they should
remove every illiberal and, injurious senti-

SEPT. 18, 1820. [74
ment, and support the cause of an injured
and innocent Queen. Deeming it unjust,
under these considerations, to pause in
this stage of the proceedings, he should
content himself for the present, by ex-
pressing his determination to vote against
the amendment.
Lord Castle.eagh said, that after the
turn which the debate had taken, he
should not find it necessary to trouble the
House with many words. But there were
some situations in which discussions
were brought forward upon grounds so
little reasonable, and arguments adduced
so foreign to the business properly before
the House, and which, in his own mind,
he might feel, could never have any in-
fluence in it, that he found it impossible
not to offer some observations, however
repugnant to his feelings it might be to
be thus dragged into a debate of this
kind. He was quite sure that the good
sense of the House must be disgusted at
finding that they were now occupied upon
a debate on a proceeding still pending in
the other House; that the character of
that House, and with it every thing con-
nected with one of the most important
measures ever agitated there, were thus
unnecessarily dragged into a discussion;
and that, in the judicial spirit in which
an hon. member on the other side of the
House had spoken, his impartiality and
his penetration appeared to be summed
up in this charge-that one of her majes-
ty's counsel had been shamefully brow-
beaten by the House of Lords! This
might furnish the House, he thought,
with a true measure of the temper in
which all the other observations they had
heard had been made. So far from hav-
ing any effect, indeed, with lion. genle-
men, or any way degrading the illustrious
assembly in question, they could only
serve to show that there were persons in
the country of minds and views so per-
verted as to prompt them to attack the
high character of an assembly which their
attack could not reach. He had been
very much surprised to hear the lion.
member for Westminster assume (which
he had no right to assume), that that
House had already decided that it would
not make any inquiry into the subject be-
fore them. That was a point which had
never been decided. He (lord Castle-
reagh) certainly had proposed to bring
the question to an issue; but hon. gentle-
men would remember the steps which it
had been at length agreed to take. Fore-

seeing that this inquiry would take the
shape of a legislative proceeding in the
upper House, and afterwards come down
there for their decision, the motion by
which the matter had been so far disposed
of had been submitted and agreed to. So
far from the House having settled the
question, this was, if he mistook not, the
third adjournment upon it which they had
adopted, being deterred from further pro-
ceeding in it, by the necessity of the
measure coming down to them from the
other House. And on the subject of the
bill eventually so coming down from the
upper House, the hon. and gallant gene-
ral (sir R. Wilson) would allow him to
say, that it was not his resolution of
throwing every possible obstacle in its
way which could prevent or retard the
coming down. The gallant general had
told them what he would do: he would,
of course, conduct himself as he thought
fit; but perhaps he would permit him to
observe, that by such predetermined op-
position he would not much raise his
character in the opinion of the country or
the House. But the fact was, he could
not prevent the House of Peers from
sending down the bill to them; and if
that House, as it was competent for them
to do, chose to send it, they (the House
of Commons) must dispose of it in one
way or the other. The gallant general,
in the prosecution of his endeavours, might
oppose the first reading, for instance; but
neither he, nor any of the judicious as-
sistants by whom he appeared to be aided,
could prevent the bill from regularly
coming down. He thought it would not
be very consistent in them, if they should
endeavour to get rid of the bill without
any inquiry or discussion at all; and he
submitted to the House, that unless they
were prepared to run counter to all their
proceedings, and to act in an unusual and
hasty manner, the very limited attendance
of the House-which had happened of
course, in the contemplation of an imme-
diate adjournment-was a reason why
they should not now proceed upon a
question whether or no they should get
rid of the measure altogether. With re-
spect to the interests of the Queen her-
self, none of her legal advisers were in
their places; although there was an hon.
gentleman (Mr. Hume) who spoke in the
tone, if not of a legal, at least of a poli-
tical, adviser of her majesty. That hon.
member spoke in the first person plural,
and had said, we" thought this, and

Bill of Pains and Penalties [76
" we" did that, and we" felt, and we"
must consider-from whence he inferred
that he was politically an adviser [A
laugh]. As to the delicacy and disgust
of an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ben-
net) and the gallant general, he would beg
to know how they supposed the charges
had been got up ? He was, however, glad
to hear the hon. member express his re-
pugnance to get rid of the question by
that subterfuge, of which the gallant offi-
cer and the honourable member for West-
minster would avail themselves they
would put down all inquiry on the plea
of delicacy. If the hon. gentlemen's
minds could bear nothing but broad
statements of facts, and if nothing short
of proof of the actual crime could satisfy
them, he, for his part, could think nothing
more easy than to have fabricated such a
fact, if those who deposed to the charges
intended to depose falsely. Did the ho-
nourable gentlemen think that those dis-
gusting details were the mere creation of
the attorney-general ? If there was a con-
spiracy fabricated by individuals-if a
conspiracy existed, how easy and natural
would it have been for those who sus-
tained it to effect their object, as far as
the honourable member's reasoning went,
by fabricating the fact at once, instead of
going into long and disgusting details ?
Was his hon. and learned friend, the at-
torney-general, to be required to draw out
a picture himself, which might suit the
honourable gentleman? He could only
assure those who had leapt so rapidly to a
conclusion in this case, that he feared they
would not as yet be able to carry convic-
tion with equal facility to the minds of
others. If the hon. gentleman, by so
conducting himself, and so inveighing
against his majesty's government, meant
to protect the interests of the Queen, he
really thought, that he was not adding one
iota to her defence, nor adding one fea-
ther to the weight of her testimony. He
must be actuated either by an erroneous
idea of serving her majesty, or by a feel-
ing which he (lord Castlereagh) could
not, for a moment, impute to him (as he
could impute no motive but a just one)-
a wish to inflame the public mind. Every
thing which had been said was only an
additional reason for going on with the
inquiry. If her majesty was innocent,
her innocence ought to be sifted to the
bottom; and if the whole were a conspi-
racy, he assured the House no man would
be more anxious to get at the fact than

77] against her Majesty.
himself. But it was not by quashing the
proceedings that either of these objects
would be attained. Whatever might be
the result, whatever decision the evidence
might call for, he was confident that there
was too much manly feeling in that House
to shrink from the investigation on which
parliament had entered, or to shrink from
discharging their duty from any consider-
ations of delicacy, or any representations
of the temper of the country. If there
was a conspiracy, that was an additional
reason for proceeding with the investiga-
tion, and sifting the subject thoroughly.
If there was a conspiracy, in the name of
God, let it be sifted to the bottom by full
investigation of the evidence. If his majes-
ty's ministers had been deceived, they had
been as anxious as the hon. gentleman to
avert the consequences of this painful
measure; and if his majesty's ministers
had been deceived by persons from various
parts of Europe speaking to various cir-
cumstances-and a better selection could
not have been made for the investigation
of truth-if his majesty's ministers had
been deceived, and if this was a conspi-
racy, the hon. gentleman would not say
that his majesty's ministers ought to have
of themselves put a negative upon the in-
formation and charges without an investi-
gation. But if this was a conspiracy, it
was a conspiracy without example; and
that was an additional motive for proceed-
ing with the investigation; and whatever
the hon. member might think, the course
pursued was that which justice required.
The gallant general, who had spoken ra-
ther as if he considered this a military
question, and not a judicial inquiry, had
produced letters by which he endeavoured
to traduce the characters of witnesses in
the other House, forgetting that the in-
quiry in that House had not terminated,
and that the facts alleged could be there
judicially inquired into. Why had he not
handed the letter to the hon. and learned
gentleman who conducted the Queen's de-
fence, so that the circumstances might be
inquired into on oath ? What could he
have intended by making a garbled state-
ment to the House of circumstances
which might have been regularly inquired
into in the other House, or which might
hereafter be investigated here ? The gal-
lant general had distinctly charged, that
this was a Hanoverian conspiracy; and,
by way of proof, repeated the often-told
tale of baron Ompteda having broken
into the house of the illustrious person,

SEPT. 18, 1820. [78
and having attempted, by most unjusti-
fiable violence and outrage, to get pos-
session of the illustrious person's papers.
He (lord Castlereagh) had thought it his
duty to make inquiry, and had applied to
count Munster, a man of the highest feel-
ings of honour, who assured him that
there was no ground to give countenance
to the charge, and that he believed no
such thing ever occurred. Several letters,
too, had been received by him, which
spoke of baron Ompteda in terms of the
highest respect. As to the mode of call-
ing him to account which had been
alluded to, whatever might be thought of
that as a mode of ascertaining truth, baron
Ompteda had lent himself in the most
willing manner to the proposition of that
kind which had been made to him, and
had waited a whole fortnight for his anta-
gonist. But he would put it to hon.
members whether any thing could be
more unfair than thus placing the charac-
ters of individuals in issue, who had no
opportunity afforded them of vindicating
their conduct.-Another subject, to which
the attention of the House had been
called, he must also advert to. He felt
how foreign it was to the question before
the House-he was sorry to fatigue the
attention of the House by travelling so
far out of the proper course-but the
digression was very reluctant on his part.
The hon. member who spoke last had.
insinuated, that there was a disposition
to obstruct and embarrass the Queen's
means of defence. From this it was clear
that the hon. member was not one of the
legal advisers of her majesty, because if
he were, he would say, We are satisfied
with all that; the government has done-
his majesty's government has done every
thing that we desired-they have done all
that we wished-they desired us only to
mention the words, as they wished to
gratify us in every possible wish." It was
clear the hon. member was not in the
legal council of her majesty, whatever
he might be in her council out of doors.
He (lord C.), it was true, had reason to
know and to lament, that at first some ob-
struction did arise from official forms;
but that was no sooner known, than every
step was taken that could be taken, to
facilitate the objects of the Queen. But
the inconvenience which her majesty's
agents might have suffered abroad were
not exclusive. His majesty's ministers,
too, might complain of the official delays
of foreign countries, and of the personal

inconvenience which followed. Most im-
portant documents, connected with the
present case, they thought might have
been produced at Milan, but they found
that it was first necessary to get an order
from Vienna. It was also found that the
order from Vienna must be previously in-
spected by the proper agent; and though
the time was extremely pressing, and the
bill was actually pending before the other
House, those documents were sent back
to Milan to be certified; and, in conse-
quence of the delay which took place,
they did not arrive in London until seve-
ral days after the case had been closed.
They came, of course, too late. They
could not however be expedited, notwith-
standing the pressing applications of colonel
Brown and of lord Stewart. He troubled
the House with this detail, in order that the
Housemightnot suppose that all the delay,
or obstruction, or inconvenience, was on
one side. They were obliged to submit
to the delay which had occurred, because
they could not expect that official forms,
so long acted on by the Austrian govern-
ment, would be laid aside on this occa-
sion. The Austrian government had
acted with the same equal spirit to both
sides. The moment the communication
had been made to him of the obstruction
which occurred, he set himself to remove
it. Dr. Lushington was the hon. gentle-
man to whom he made the proposition,
and he executed simply and entirely the
wish of the Queen's counsel.-On the
question itself he had nothing to say. The
House had already three times given their
opinion, and no human mind could doubt
that honour and justice required that par-
liament should proceed to investigate the
charges which placed the Queen in the
painful situation in which she was at pre-
sent placed. If he had not forgotten the
gallant general's language, and the words
of the hon. member near him (Mr. Ben-
net), at moments when ministers were
anxious to avoid this investigation, the
honourable members were loud in their
taunts. Why not produce specific charges,
they asked-Why not state distinct
charges? Why not bring forward their
accusation ? The hon. gentlemen on the
other side cried out, but very inoppor-
tunely, on this subject; for when minis-
ters wished for inquiry, the hon. gentle-
men opposed it: when ministers were
not for inquiry, then nothing was to be
heard from the gentlemen opposite but
inquiry. As to the feeling out of doors,

Bil of Pains and Penalties [80
he felt as painfully as any member the
deep sensation created by the details
of this investigation. He knew the ge-
nerous feelings of the people of this
country; he knew that their feelings were
alive to such a case, and particularly when
the sex was implicated which they all felt
most anxious about, and most desirous to
honour. But he hoped he did not regard
this feeling with unbecoming dismay. He
was confident that this anxious and im-
portant question, after investigating all
the circumstances in which it was in-
volved, would be so settled as to satisfy
the feeling of the country. He felt con-
fident that it was impossible that injustice
could be done, when the investigation
was openly conducted in the face of the
two Houses of Parliament, in the face of
the country, and in the face of all Europe.
He wished honourable members had pre-
vented themselves from speaking upon
the subject in the tone in which some had
indulged, and had suspended their judg-
ment till the whole of the evidence should
be before them, whatever the effect of
that evidence might be. The members
of that House, at least, ought to come to
no conclusion upon the charge, or the
evidence in support of the charge, till
they had heard her majesty's defence.
The honourable member had not, he was
satisfied, intended to produce such an
effect; but their language that night
would have the effect of encouraging, a
party-not numerous he trusted-who
fastened on this, as on every public cala-
mity-whether a mutiny in the fleet, the
evils of a long-protracted war, or the dis-
tresses of the country-with the hope of
making it the means of effecting their
base and wicked object; namely, the sub-
version of the laws and constitution of the
country. There was much of generous
delusion in the country (which he re-
spected) wound up with this question. If
honourable members wished the elements
of this delusion to be dissolved,-let
them not follow the course which they
had taken that night: for, in the effect of
their language, they were countenancing,
co-operating, and assisting, in the most
mischievous designs, by the tone of inti-
midation and of precipitation which they
adopted, and which would admit no ho-
nest and sound discretion to the consi-
deration of the subject. Such a tone was
calculated to give countenance abroad to
the most mischievous spirit. He trusted,
however, that nothing which had fallen

81] against her Manjesty.
from the other side would prevent the
House from taking that temperate course
which justice required, if the bill should
come down to them. Whatever warm
feelings members might have expressed
that night, they would, he was confident,
feel their error when they should come
to consider the subject judicially. The
House, he was sure, would discharge its
duty, as on all difficult questions it had
done, with an enlarged view of the case,
and a determination to promote the great
ends of justice.
Mr. Maberly said, he should not assert
that the whole of the proceedings against
the Queen originated in a foul conspiracy ;
nor did he rise to insult the nice honour
of the attorney-general by making any
comments on the speeches of the counsel;
but he felt himself called upon to give the
reasons why he supported the motion of
the honourable member for Westminster.
He had formerly had the pleasure (and
lie could sincerely say it was a pleasure)
to vote with the noble lord Castlereagh,
in the majority which declared, on the
22nd of June last, that the proceedings
against the Queen, whatever the result of
them might be, could not be otherwise
than derogatory from the honour of the
Crown, and injurious to the best interests
of the country. He, therefore, now, in
accordance with that resolution, and for
the sake of maintaining his own consist-
ency in what he conceived to be a cor-
rect opinion, should vote for the motion
of the hon. member for Westminster.
The noble lord had talked of the fear of
public clamour, and had dealt out his
monitions to that side of the House, in a
very general and unwarrantable way.
The noble lord should have confined his
admonitions to those who needed them.
He meant to do his duty, as fearlessly and
as regardlessly of public clamour, as the
noble lord; he would perform his duty to
his constituents as honestly as the noble
lord; but there necessarily was, in the
judgment of every man, a public feeling
that should have some weight with par-
liament, and it was manifest to every one
that that opinion was now decidedly
against the proceedings in the case of the
Queen, and it was equally clear, that it
was, in a great measure, founded on that
vote in which he had concurred, and
which he now wished the House to main-
tain. He had thus stated his reasons for
the vote which he should give; he should
have been able to avoid that necessity,

Skir. 18, 1820. [Sg
but he was not able to avoid it without
shrinking from the discharge of his
duty. He should vote for Ohe amend-
ment of the honourable member for West-
minster, on the ground of consistency;
and, on the same ground, in every stage
of the proceeding, he should vote against
pressing the measure forward. A noble
lord, in another place, had talked of the
relinquishment of the divorce part of the
bill, and he had professed that his ma-
jesty had no feeling whatever respecting
the measure. Would any one say that
the nation had a feeling in its favour?
The noble lord had left that party in the
measure-the nation-out of the question,
He (Mr. M.) thought the interest of the
nation was that which they had princi-
pally to look to; and he could not there-
fore agree with the hon. member for Mon-
trose (Mr. Hume), that the bill should
be pressed forward in order to enable the
Queen to clear herself. The guilt or the
innocence of the Queen was of no im-
portance compared with the evil which
was inflicted on the nation by the pro-
Mr. Creevey said, that he also should
state why he agreed with the honourable
member for Westminster, in the amend-
ment which he had moved. He could
not agree that the proceedings which
were now carrying on in the other House
did not form a fit subject for discussion at
that moment. He had known no public
question that had ever arisen, of greater
importance than whether the bill pending
against her majesty should be allowed to
proceed? and he knew no other mode of
bringing that question into discussion,
and getting an opinion on it than by such,
a motion as that of the honourable member
for Westminster. On a former occasion,
when the noble lord, the member for
Cambridgeshire had made a similar pro-
position, he had determined to support it;
but the counsel for the Queen had said,
that it would be a great hardship if she
were not allowed to go into her defence,
and he had consequently withdrawn his
support from that motion. But the fact
was, as it now appeared, that though the
whole of the case against the Queen was
gone through, the injuries she had suf-
fered were so great, that the evidence
against her went, in the opinion of the
public, for nothing. The people had
seen the Queen charged ith a crime
that was no crime by law; menaced with
an act which was at once to make the

crime, and to pronounce the judgment on
it; they had seen her negotiated with
and threatened alternately ; they had seen
her formerly turned out of her house;
they had seen her almost compelled to
leave this country ; they had seen her,
when abroad, followed by spies, all her
actions watched, attacked by a confede-
racy of all the powers of Europe [Lord
Castlereagh dissented]. The noble lord
might shake his head at this, but he (Mr.
C.) had attended to the evidence as far
as it had gone in the House of Lords; he
had heard from the mouths of the wit-
nesses, that such and such ministers and
ambassadors had requested them, and had
threatened to use force to induce them to
come here. He had seen the way in
which the resources of England had been
lavished on the witnesses ; and he felt con-
vinced, that the same powers that were set
in motion to bring hither evidence against
the Queen, would be employed to keep
back the witnesses in her favour. Such
were the calamities which were heaped on
anindividual-and that individual a woman
-and that woman too, a queen-a prin-
cess of the house of Brunswick. These
things could not be known without arous-
ing the warmest and most lasting indigna-
tion. The fact was, political questions
were comparatively matter of a day, but
violations of the principles of justice were
never forgotten. Why, but for this, was
it, that now, at the distance of nearly two
hundred years, the name of Hampden, a
plain country gentleman, who had de-
fended his property against the arbitrary
orders of the eourt, was still famous among
Englishmen? Why was it but for the
villainy and corruption of the judges who
had sanctioned the proceedings, that he
was in the mouths of every one who
could read the English language? That
was a proceeding against a private man.
Did the noble lord think that these pro-
ceedings against the Queen of England,
would excite a feeling less intense or less
durable. Did he think that it was nothing
to set the aristocracy against the middle
and lower classes of the nation ? He was
not one of those who thought lightly of
the aristocracy; they were identified with
all that had been gained for liberty in this
country; and he wished to see them con-
tinue to be thus identified; but he was
sorry to say, that as far as they had gone,
they injured themselves in public esteem,
and he believed the aristocracy to be in
the wrong, and the great body of the

Bill of Pains and Penalties [84
people in the right. Would not the noble
lord rather keep the aristocracy and the
people united, than separate them, as they
were separated on the present question ?
The bill degraded, as it went on, every in-
stitution in the country. It professed to
degrade the Queen. It had already de-
graded the House of Lords. The peers
of England had been, day after day, sitting,
to hear evidence which every master of a
family would hide carefully from his sons
or daughters. Had not the noble lord,
too, seen in the published accounts of the
evidence, the notices of the cheers of the
judges when any thing came out which
seemed to promote the case against the
Queen [Lord Castlereagh intimated his
dissent]. He (Mr. C.) had heard these
cheers with his own ears. He had been
a witness of that frightful exhibition. He
had heard the counsel reprimanding the
judges [Hear, hear from a member on
the ministerial side]. He did not know
what the honourable member meant; but
he would ask whether it was not a repri-
mand, and whether it must not have been
felt as a degradation to that assembly.
when the counsel for the Queen asked
what was the meaning of those acclama-
tions ? Did he not think that such an event
was sincerely to be deplored ? This was a
real degradation to the aristocracy. Then
came the intimation that the divorce clause
was to be given up. This intimation was
given at a time when it was apprehended
that recrimination, which was inseparable
from the measure, in whatever way it was
urged, might be resorted to. The ho-
nourable member for Shrewsbury had
justly observed, that whatever had been
said of the king in the House, or still
more strongly out of the House, did not
degrade the king half as much as this at-
tempt to withdraw the divorce clause.
The next establishment that was to be de-
graded was the House of Commons. If
the bill, by any misfortune, should come
to them, in what situation would they be ?
They were a jury of six hundred, without
the power of administering an oath. He
did not complain of this, but such was the
law. The only authority to whom they
could appeal would be that of the worthy
chairman of the committee of ways and
means. During the time he had attended
the House of Lords, he had seen the
judges retire two or three times a day to
instruct the House, in which there were
four learned persons who had filled the
office of lord chancellor. What could

85] against her Majesty.
they do in that House without the assist-
ance of any judges, and without any legal
authority other than that of the worthy
chairman ? He hoped that this difficulty
would be never brought home to them;
and he felt not only justified, but anxious
to vote with the honourable member for
Westminster, for an address to prorogue
the parliament. To put a stop to this ca-
lamitous inquiry was the only nmde of pre-
venting every thing dignified in the state
from being degraded; it was the only
mode of preserving the administration of
justice unviolated; above all, it was the
only mode of harmonizing the higher, the
middle, and the lower orders of society.
Mr. Peter Moore said, he should state
his reasons for supporting the amendment,
as well on account of the importance of
the subject, as because, from his having
attended a great number of public meet-
ings, he had a better opportunity than
many members of knowing what the pub-
lic opinion was. He now lamented, that
the motion of the noble lord the member
for Cambridgeshire (lord F. Osborne) on
a former occasion, had not been carried
into effect. The objection that was then
made to the motion was, that as the evi-
dence had begun, it was fit it should be
carried through. He had not thought
that argument conclusive, and he should
vote for the amendment of the honourable
member for Westminster on the present
occasion; and in doing so, he should be
acting in unison with his constituents, who
had had a meeting on the subject, and had
instructed him to resist every step of this
inquiry. The noble lord's objection ap-
peared the least of all objections on the
subject. The noble lord had contended,
that public justice required that an inquiry
of this nefarious character (for it was ne-
farious) should be further continued. But
a day of reckoning would come, and it
was not far distant. He had given the
subject every possible consideration--he
had looked at every pretence on which it
had been brought forward-hle had weigh-
ed all the evidence; and his solemn con-
viction was, that this was as dark and foul
a conspiracy as had ever been formed,
and that his majesty's ministers were at
the bottom of it. He would not mince it.
He repeated, that it was as foul a conspi-
racy as had ever been formed, and that
his majesty's ministers were at the bottom
of it. He had reflected on the state of the
public mind; and there was but one opi-
nion as to the necessity of rescuing the

SEPT. 18, 1820. [86
public and his majesty from the hands of
his ministers, and saving the monarchy;
for the monarchy was hazarded. He
gave no opinion of the guilt or innocence
of her majesty. On that subject there
should be no doubt, after the ship-loads
and cart-loads of evidence which had been
imported. But his great objection was, on
the ground of the public interests, and
to rescue the monarchy from danger.
Ministers had dragged the monarch to
the chin in dirt and filth. For what
purpose ? What! but to get them-
selves out of the foul conspiracy? It
was on the principle of justice that he
resisted the proceedings; and so said the
majority of the House, which had voted
that the proceedings, terminate in what-
ever way they might, could not fail to be
derogatory from the honour of the Crown,
and injurious to the best interests of the
country. But the ministers had, in spite
of that vote, proceeded to derogate from
the honour of the Crown, and to injure
the best interests of the country. The
country was persuaded, that till their
affairs were out of the hands of those
men, there was no security for persons,
or property, or laws, or constitution.
What was the judicatory in this case-
who was the prosecutor? As in 1806,
there was a child without a father, so
there was now a counsel who could not
tell who employed him. Who had drawn
up the bill? If a public officer-why did
he not come forward and avow himself?
The attorney-general said, that he acted
under the House of Lords; but he did
not know how they could give any di-
rection till an accusation was preferred.
There was, however, but one opinion
prevailing throughout the country, and
that was, that all further prosecution of
this inquiry ought to be immediately put
down. Every day it was hazarding the
affections of the people to their govern-
ment; every day it was giving rise to
other questions of a no less dangerous na-
ture. It was asked in many places whe-
ther, if a Queen could be set aside by a
proceeding of this kind, persons of equal
or higher rank might not also become
the object of a similar measure? It was
inferred that the bench of bishops, that
the House of Lords itself, might, if cir-
cumstances should so happen, be treated
with as little respect. Was it wise thus
to open the way to discussions which
could not be advantageous, and to force
names and institutions which ought to be

held sacred upon public attention in this
point of view? For his own part, he be-
lieved the inquiry had been gone into,
and that the bill itself had been intro-
duced, only as an indemnity to ministers
for the conduct which they had previously
observed towards the Queen in leaving
her name out of the Liturgy. It was
with this view that the other House had
been led into its present extraordinary
situation; it was for this purpose they
had assumed the office and character of
political judges. Now, what was the
true meaning and definition of a political
judge ? In other courts judges were bound
by their particular oaths, and by esta-
blished forms of proceeding, and nothing
was considered more detestable than what
was called a political judge. Amongst
the political judges of the Queen, how-
ever, were some even of her accusers;
and the person who presided at the tri-
bunal, and who gave a tone and direc-
tion to the whole Court, was the first
minister of the Crown. If the large as-
semblies-if the many thousands in this
metropolis-who had expressed their opi-
nions on this subject, were not all in
error-if their unanimous voice did pro-
claim the truth, as he in his conscience
believed it did, then not only was the
Queen an innocent woman, but the
charges against her had originated in a
foul conspiracy. He sincerely regretted
that the House had not interposed at an
earlier stage, so as to stop the prosecu-
tion effectually, or at least to preventits
going to the outrageous and disgusting
length to which it had been carried.
The ministers of the Crown had so de.
graded their sovereign, that if recrimina-
tion were now resorted to, his majesty,
upon the ordinary rules and principles
of such proceedings, might be cited as
a witness, to put in his answer to charges
against himself. He had received a letter
only two days ago from a man of high
character and professional talents, now in
the course of his travels, and who repre-
sented the general sentiment of the coun-
try where he then was, to be, that Eng-
land was degrading the laurels which she
had acquired by so many victories, and
.that the sun of her glory was about to set
for ever [A laugh!]. He could assure
the House, that this vwas the letter of an
eminent man, well known in the circles in
which he moved, and the pride of the
profession to which he belonged. He
believed he had now said enough to point

Bill of Pains and Penalties

out the danger to which the constitution,
the bench of bishops, and all the consti-
tuted authorities of the realm, were ex-
posed, by a proceeding which the House
would have done well to stop when at an
earlier period a noble friend of his had
made a motion to that effect.
Mr. Ellice said, he was under the ne-
cessity of differing from his honourable
colleague pn the subject of the proposed
amendment. If he could think it con-
sistent with any principle of justice, or if
he could persuade himself that it would
have the effect of limiting the calamitous
consequences which every day became
more apparent, he should readily sacrifice
his own opinion to that of his honourable
friend. But as he did not think it likely
that the amendment would be carried, he
must frankly say, that he saw no reason to
concur with it. The evidence against the
illustrious person in question had gone
forth to the public, accompanied by the
statement, summing up, and comments of
the law-officers of the Crown. To him it
appeared that it would be gross injustice
not to allow her majesty the opportunity
of rebutting it, and of proving what had
been asserted, that the charges were the
offspring of a foul conspiracy. Upon
these grounds, he felt obliged to vote
against the proposition for now putting
an end to the inquiry, although it would
give him extreme satisfaction to support
any motion that could stop the further
proceedings, if that measure was not at
the same time an act of injustice towards
the illustrious person accused. He would
also state his determination, if the bill
should unfortunately come down to that
House, to oppose the first reading of it,
on the principle, that bills of such a de-
scription ought never to be entertained,
except in cases where they were essential
to the public safety.
Sir M. W. Ridley expressed his con-
currence in the views stated by his ho-
nourable friend who had just set down;
but he rose for the purpose of putting a
question to his majesty's ministers, which
in his opinion was of importance both to
the character and dignity of the govern-
ment. He had observed in a report of
what had passed at a recent meeting held
at the Crown and Anchor, that an ho-
nourable baronet (sir G. Noel), who pre-
sided on that occasion, had read a letter
from a worthy alderman (Wood), in which
it was said that the defence of the Queen
had bpen left short by the want of pecu-


89] against her Majesty.
niary assistance from government. Such
a representation was, he trusted, erro-
neous; but, if correct, his majesty's mi-
nisters must, he was persuaded, incur the
heaviest displeasure of that House. He
"wished also to inquire whether there was
any objection to lay before the House the
amount of the sums advanced for the pur-
poses of her majesty's defence, and he
availed himself of that opportunity to ob-
serve, that the noble lord had fully vindi-
cated administration from one charge
which had been brought against it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
he was perfectly prepared to give the
honourable baronet a distinct official an-
swer to the question which he had put.
He could assure him, in the first place,
that every sum for which application had
been made by the Queen's legal advisers
had been advanced, with an intimation
from the Treasury, that if any further
sums were deemed necessary they would
be cheerfully furnished, subject only to
such an account as the legal advisers of
the Queen should be able to render.
Sir M. W. Ridley asked, what was the
actual sum advanced on account of the
defence ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer re-
plied, that the whole amount of what had
been advanced was 20,0001. The sum of
10,0001. was advanced before the pro-
ceeding commenced, and a second sum
of the same amount about three weeks
Mr. Hume wished to know how many
days had elapsed between the application
for the second sum, and its actual ad-
vance ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
that no further time had elapsed than was
strictly in accordance with the forms of
Mr. S. C. Whitbread wished to state,
in a very few words, the reasons which
induced him to support a motion which
had for its object an immediate abandon-
ment of the proceedings against her ma-
jesty. In his opinion, the calamitous con-
sequences which they had a tendency to
produce, and were really producing, be-
came more obvious every day. He had
never indeed been able to discover what
beneficial end was to be answered by
them. It was said, that the subject had
been taken up out of a regard to public
morals; but who would say that public
morals would not have been more re-
ppected by a suppression of the inquiry,

UPT. 18, 1820. [90
than by blazoning its details throughout
the country ? But, if the interests of mo-
rality formed the chief object of this pro-
ceeding, he hoped their search would not
be limited to the conduct or manners of
the Queen. The Queen was, indeed, the
first subject, and it was proposed to make
her a great example; but perhaps there
were persons as high, or even higher,
whose example might be yet more im-
portant. The evils of proceeding further
with the bill of Pains and Penalties were
inevitable; the advantage none. He should
only add, by way of notice, that as the
House had received information with re-
gard to the sums advanced for the de-
fence, he should, as soon as the present
question was disposed of, move for an
account of the expenses incurred in the
Mr. Lennard felt it his duty to protest
against the doctrine of the noble lord,
that it was improper for this House to
interfere with the proceedings of the
House of Lords. He was surprised to
hear such an opinion expressed by any
member of the House of Commons. If
there was one right better established
than another, it was the right, he should
rather call it the duty, of the House of
Commons to check and to control the
House of Lords, when it was assuming
to itself any dangerous or unconstitutional
power. This was a right repeatedly exer-
cised by this House. In the time of
Charles the Second, when the House of
Lords attempted to exercise, in the case
of Skinner against the East India Com-
pany,* an original jurisdiction, the House
of Commons interfered, and checked this
dangerous assumption of power. He
thought, therefore, that the honourable
member for Westminster was perfectly
justified in the motion he made. He
could not, however, support the motion.
Agreeing with the member for Middlesex,
that the proceedings against the Queen
were injurious to the interests of morality,
he still thought that, as the poison had
been sent forth-as treason had done its
worst-that the Queen should be allowed
to apply an antidote to that poison: it
would be uijusttodeprive her of this right;
and the more so after the declaration
made by her attorney-general, at the last
meeting of the House, when a similar
motion was made, that the trial must then

See New Parliamentary History,
Vol. 4, p. 422.

go on-that it was too late to recede
But, if gentlemen thought the Queer
stood acquitted by the evidence brought
against her, still there was another part
-the country. It was right that tlh
counsel of the Queen should have ar
opportunity of showing what was the cha.
racter of the witnesses brought against
her; for if it should appear that they were
the dregs of Italy, that they were perfectly
unworthy of credit, then the ministers
would have incurred a heavy responsibi-
lity. The country was looking at the pre-
sent trial as the trial, not of the Queen
merely, but of the ministers. In voting
against the motion of the honourable
member for Westminster, he did not con-
ceive that, at a future time, he should be
precluded from opposing the bill at the
very threshold of the House.
Sir Gerard Noel declared that he could
not reconcile it to his feelings to give
quite a silent vote upon this question. He
believed that the bill under consideration
was altogether without a precedent since
the period of the Revolution. The House
of Lords had never since that period as-
sumed the kind of jurisdiction which they
were now exercising. He had heard with
much pleasure the sentiments expressed
by many honourable members, and was
confirmed in his resolution of opposing
the bill in all its stages.
Mr. Alderman Heygate said, he was
originally of the opinion expressed in the
resolution of tihe House of the 22nd of
June last, that the discussion of this
affair of the Queen must, in any re-
sult, be injurious to the best interests of
all the parties. Every thing had since
concurred to strengthen this opinion, and
to show the impolicy of suspending the
business of a great country, on account of
the conduct of an individual, and a sub-
ject, however exalted in rank. It would
not, however, now be fair to stop the pro-
ceedings until both sides had been heard
in the House of Peers. When that had
taken place would be the proper time to
pause and consider what course it was
best to pursue. In the mean time the
honourable alderman deprecated the un-
constitutional language used on behalf of
the Queen, to induce the army to inter-
fere in political questions-language
which, in former times, would have called
forth the notice of all who valued the
constitution. He called upon every one
professing to love freedom to pause before
he used, or countenanced even by his

Bill of Pains and Penalties [92
silence, such language, and to reflect that
I the army which might one day be used'
t in behalf of what he thought right, might
be turned on the next in favour of des-
Spotism. As there was no evil out of which
i some good might not be extracted, he
- trusted that what he had alluded to (with-
t out intending in the least to doubt the
Loyalty and fidelity of the British army),
Coupled with the late military revolutions
Son the continent, would induce the go-
Svernment to reduce the excessive stand-
Sing army, and to trust in time of peace
to a more constitutional force. By so
doing they would indeed strengthen the
throne by satisfying the rational and
Thinking part of the country.
Mr. Keith Douglas observed, that the
consternation and dismay which had been
represented as now prevailing were, in
in his opinion, to be ascribed rather to
the influence of the press than to the
extent of our military establishments.
He took a view of our danger somewhat
different from that entertained by the
worthy alderman who preceded him.
Every one who wished well to the pros-
perity of the country must lament to
see the public press so mischievously, so
ably, and so successfully labouring; in a
way that was not adequately resisted, to
inflame discontent, and to increase public
alarm. He thought it would be impro-
per for parliament to separate without an
understanding that his majesty's ministers
had some measures in contemplation for
correcting the licence of the press [A
loud cry of Hear hear !" from the Op-
position benches]. He might be imper-
fectly expressing what he meant, but lie
did see in the evil of which he complained
a danger truly alarming. It was far from
his wish that the liberties of the country
should be curtailed; but the question
was, whether some remedy ought not to
be applied to a great evil ? The case of
the Queen was one subject of considera-
tion; but it was brought into connexion
with various others, by the journals and
publications of the day. The press had
assumed a new character; it was con-
ducted with unusual ability, and was in-
cessantly employed in propagating its
doctrines. The consequences were evi-
dent; they found addresses presented of
a new description, coming from large bo-
dies not before accustomed to assemble
together for such a purpose. As an in-
stance, lie might refer to the address
lately carried up to the Queen by a great

93] against her Majesty.
number of seamen. The metropolis was
upon that occasion thrown into consider-
able bustle and alarm; but scenes of the
same kind were perpetually occurring,
and if multitudes were thus frequently
brought together, they must be liable to
the contagion of bad passions. A meet-
ing was advertised for next Monday, at
which probably many thousands would be
present; and what he contended fbr
was, that these circumstances were of a
nature to excite and perpetuate alarm.
To say the least, they were productive of
great inconvenience; and he felt it his
duty to state the evil, although he might
not perceive the best means of redressing
it. In his opinion, the government of the
country should come forward and assure
parliament and the country, that as far as
it was in their power-as far as they were
in possession of legitimate means-they
would exert them for the prevention and
suppression of tumult. The well-disposed
part of the public might then, perhaps,
be relieved from the apprehension of the
mischief spreading any further, or of its
endangering our institutions.
Mr. Bernal wished to make only three
remarks. Did the hon. gentleman who
spoke last consider that his majesty's mi-
nisters had not duly exercised the power
entrusted to them, or did he wish them
to produce a new edition of the late acts
for regulating the press? If there was
any danger in what was now going for-
ward, the House of Lords had not shown
any apprehension of it; they had imposed
no restriction on the publication of the
entire proceedings, and had suffered evi-
dence to go forth to the world, which
must necessarily have the effect of casting
a slur upon the Queen's character. That
House would do well to cherish the li-
berty of the press, and not allow it to be
cut down in a by-way. If it was con-
ducted with superior industry and talent,
that was an additional reason for pardon-
ing its occasional licence.
Mr. Hobhouse observed, that although
as a young member he felt diffident in
pressing the House to a division, yet the
question appeared to him to be so im-
portant, that he was placed under the ne-
cessity of exercising his right.
The Housd then divided For the
amttendment, 12; against it 66. Majority
for the original motion, 54.
List ofthe Minority.
Bennet, H. G. Bernal, R.

SEPT. 18, 1820.

Coke, T. W.
Creevey, Thos.
Hughes, Colonel
laberly, J. sen.
Martin, John
Moore, P.
Noel, Sir G.

Osborne, Lord F.
Palmer, C. F.
Whitbread, S.
Ilobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, Sir. R.

Sir Robert Wilson, seeing the noble
lord opposite in his place, was extremely
anxious to ask him a question of some
importance, to which he hoped the noble
lord would have no objection to return
an answer. In doing this, it was neces-
sary for him to state to the noble lord,
that a man of the name of Krous had
been employed by the Milan commission,
as an extra courier (not as the courier of
the government), and had, in that capa-
city, been frequently sent from Milan, on
different matters connected with the bu.
siness of the commission. In proceeding
to England, it was understood that this
person was arrested in Paris, on the charge
of having forged Bank of England notes
in his possession to the amount of 3101.
The notes were sent to England to be
examined, and they proved to be forged.
When he was apprehended, he was asked,
whether he had attempted, when going
to England, to pass those notes in Paris ?
To this interrogatory he made no answer.
To a second question he stated that re
had received the notes from a person at
Milan. An officer of the police was in
consequence dispatched, to inquire whe-
ther the notes were really given to him
by any person in Milan; he being com-
mitted to prison till the return of the of-
ficer. Now, the question he would ask
was this:-It had been confidently stated,
that sir Charles Stewart had made re-
peated and earnest demands to the French
government for the release of the indivi-
dual so charged, and that he was in con-
sequence released; although the police
officer, when he returned, stated, that he
could not find the person fiom whom
Krous said he had received the notes:
he wished therefore to know, whether
such an application had been made by sir
Charles Stewart, and whether the British
government knew of the transaction ?
Lord Castlereagh said, though he was
not able to answer the gallant general's
question to its fullest extent, he was
happy in having an opportunity of stating
what he knew of this business-a state-
ment which he conceived to be due to
the individual mentioned. Under the
circumstances of the case, his answer

must necessarily be a general one; but
he would give the gallant general more
detailed information on the subject, if he
thought proper hereafter to call the at-
tention of the House to it. He regretted
that an opportunity had not occurred in
a former debate of giving to the House
the explanation he was about to offer.
The individual in question was a person
who had long been employed in the king's
service, when the transaction of different
missions required it. Of late, he had
been very frequently employed in con-
veying dispatches from Milan. On one
of these journies he was detained in Paris,
in consequence of his having notes which
were represented to be forged. Sir
Charles Stewart did, in consequence,
make those representations which he was
obliged to make, under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the case. This led to an
investigation of the affair; and, as the in-
dividual was again employed in the ser-
vice of government, it would appear that
he had been completely justified. The
French government withdrew all proceed-
ings against him; and, if he were cor-
rectly informed, no stain or suspicion
rested on his character. He was glad
that the question was asked, because the
explanation would set Mr. Krous right
with the world. If the gallant general
could point out to him any mode by
which farther information could be ob-
tained, he would accede to it; and, in
justice to Mr. Krous, he would agree that
the circumstance should be investigated.
He believed that nothing could be ad-
duced detrimental to his character.
Mr. Whitbread rose, in conformity with
the notice he had given in the early part
of the evening, to move, that an account
of the sums expended in the' prosecution
of the Queen be laid on the table, from
the earliest period of the six years, when
the proceedings were first instituted, down
to the present time. At any other period
he would have given the notice usual on
such occasions; but the peculiar circum-
stances under which the House had as-
sembled prevented him from adopting
that course. Besides, he conceived that
not the least opposition could be made to
the motion. He was induced to call foi
this account, in consequence of many re-
ports that had gone abroad, as well as of
many statements which had come out in
the course of the evidence (with all of
which they were acquainted), from which
it appeared that some of the witnesses ac-

Bill of Pains and Penalties E[9
knowledge that they had received very
large sums of money. It was well known
to gentlemen, that an account of all mo-
nies allowed for the use of the Queen in
the course of the present proceedings had
been granted elsewhere; and it was, he
thought, necessary, that the amount of
sums furnished to the other side should
also be produced. Indeed, it appeared
to him that his majesty's ministers must
feel obliged to any person who afforded
them an opportunity of removing any
portion of the odium which was connected
with this filthy proceeding. Many re-
ports, they all knew, had gone abroad as
to the immense sums that had been spent
in the prosecution of this object; and he
wished to know, by means of the account
for which he should move, what expense
had been incurred by the Milan commis-
sion. He thought that the whole of the
circumstances connected with this case,
in whatever point they were viewed, re-
flected any thing but honour on this
country. He should not trespass farther
on their attention, but move, That
there be laid before this House, an ac-
count of all sums expended from the
period of her majesty's departure from
England, in the year 1814, up to the pre-
sent time, with respect to the proceedings
carried on against the Queen of England;
including all sums paid to his majesty's
ministers at foreign courts, and all sums
paid to the commission at Milan."
Lord Castlereagh said, if the hon. gen-
tleman had intimated to the House that
he merely wished for a statement of the
general amount of the public expenditure
connected with this matter, although he
(lord C.) might consider it not prudent to
call for such an account, still he felt that
it was one which might have been grant-
ed; but certainly, the motion, as it now
stood, was extremely unsatisfactory, be-
cause the hon. member had not called on
the House for a short statement of the
expenses incurred by the whole of the
proceedings, both those that were neces-
sary in supporting the bill, and those that
were called for in opposing it. The hon.
gentleman had called for a detailed ac-
count, on one side, for the purpose of
examining adversely, and criminally, if
he pleased, any part of that expenditure
which he thought proper. Now, to what-
ever point the House might hereafter
deem it necessary to extend its inquiries,
he thought that the present was not a
moment for the introduction of an exami-

97] against her Majestjy.
nation of this subject. He could assure
the lion. gentleman that there was no dis-
position on the part of his majesty's go-
vernment to withhold proper information
from the House. In fairness to his ma-
jesty's government he must say, that they
were ready to grant any information that
could be considered just and reasonable.
With respect to the auditing of the ac-
count, such an audit, with reference
either to the expenditure incurred for or
against the Queen, could not take place
in that House, on any known and recog.
nised principle. He could, however,
assure the hon. member, that there was
no part of the expenditure in support of
the bill, including even that of the Milan
commission, which should not undergo
precisely the same description of audit as
would be applied to her majesty's
expenses. That expenditure ought un-
questionably to receive a proper audit,
and ministers were ready to submit it to
an audit exactly the same as that to which
the expenses incurred by the proceedings
against the bill would be subjected. But
they did not think that that audit should
take place in the House of Commons, nor
did they contemplate the present as a fit
moment for entertaining the subject, when
the proceedings were in progress, and the
vouchers were not in a proper situation
for being audited. He should, therefore,
move the previous question.
Mr. Whitbread said, he had stated that
he was induced to make this motion in
consequence of an account that had been
applied for in another House, relative to
the expenses incurred on the part of the
Queen, which they all knew must be a
mere trifle when compared with the sum
expended in support of the bill. If this
were not a proper and convenient time to
ask for an account of the sums issued in
supporting the bill, he could not imagine
how it could be a proper and convenient
time for granting an account of the ex-
pense incurred in defending the Queen.
Lord Castlereagh said, he had no ob-
jection to laying the gross amount of the
expenditure on the table of the House;
but he believed it was not the intention
of the hon. member to enter into the
question of the general expenditure, but,
as he understood him, to examine the
expenditure in detail, and to object to
some part of it. He would not press the
previous question, but move for an ac-
count of the gross expenditure, as far as
the same can be made up.

SIPT. 18, 1820. [98
Mr. Bennet wished to ask the noble lord
from what fund these sums of money had
been drawn. The noble lord had said, on
a former occasion, that the duke of Corn-
wall had a right to inquire into the con-
duct of his wife. Now, if he had a right
to inquire into the conduct of the duchess
of Cornwall, he (Mr. B.) conceived he
had also a right to pay the expenses. He
hoped the right hon. gentleman, or the
noble lord would inform the House from
what fund, whether large or small, the
expenses of this inquiry were to be paid ?
Lord Castlereagh said, that the expenses
which had been incurred abroad were pro.
perly charged out of the secret-service
money; but from the moment the inves-
tigation assumed the character of a public
inquiry, it would be charged among the
civil contingencies. His majesty's minis-
ters were prepared to submit all the items
charged out of the secret-service money
to the same audit as every other part of
the expenditure.
Mr. Hume said, it was fresh in his re-
collection, when the vote for secret-ser-
vice money was last before that House,
that he put a question to the noble lord,
having at that time in his mind the expen-
diture of the Milan commission. He had
stated the great amount of the vote de-
manded, and the answer he had received,
to the best of his remembrance, was this-
the noble lord had said that the House
must be aware that, during a long war,
expenses would be incurred, chargeable
on the secret-service money, which would
not end at the termination of hostilities,
but must be provided for during some
time after. From this answer, he did not
think that any part of the secret service
money could be intended for the Milan
commission; because the question was
expressly put, in order to ascertain whe-
ther it was possible for his majesty's go-
vernment, consistently with their oath, to
take sums out of that fund for such a ser-
vice? Now, however, to his utter asto-
nishment, he found that they did make
use of a part of that money, notwithstand-
ing their oath, to effect this dirty pur-
Lord Castlereagh said, if he recollected
rightly, the hon. member had asked him
a question as to the gross amount of such
secret-service money for the year. He
had observed, Why, as you are now at
peace, is there a necessity to call on
parliament for so large a sum on account
of secret services?" and he (lord C.)


had stated in answer, that though the
country was at pence, charges had grown
out of the latter part of the war, which it
was necessary to provide for. Now, with
respect to the sum paid out of the secret-
service money on account of the Milan
commission, the hon. member would find
it by no means so large as he imagined.
The sum distributed over the two years
prior to the public proceedings in this
case, was either 9,0001. or 10,000/.; and
he did not know from what fund it could
be more properly supplied than from the
secret-service money. It was necessary
to carry on the inquiry abroad, and the
proceeding was one which, from its pecu-
liar character, rendered the expense the
more fit to be defrayed in that manner, in
order to avoid publicity; and to give
effect to the inquiry, the secret-service
money appeared to him to be precisely
the fund out of which the expense should
Mr. Maberly said, he was desirous to
know, as the noble lord had stated that
one part of the proceeding was to be de-
frayed out of the secret-service money,
from what fund his majesty's ministers
intended to pay the residue of the ex-
pense? There had been no grant made
by parliament, and he knew not from
what fund he could take that money.
Lord Castlereagh said, that after the
period had elapsed when the expenses
had ceased to be defrayed from the secret-
service money, bills had been drawn by
the commission abroad, and answered by
the foreign office. They would of course
be sanctioned by the Treasury.
Mr. Maberly replied, that this was a
most dangerous mode of proceeding, and
contrary to the usage of that House. If
ministers had a right to take 1,0001. in
that way, by the same rule they might
issue 1,000,0001., or any sum they pleased.
The answer of the noble lord was not
therefore a satisfactory one. The more
proper and constitutional mode of pro-
ceeding would be, to take a vote of that
House for whatever sum they might find
Mr. Huskisson observed, that the pro-
ceeding in this case was of the same
nature as what took place with respect to
the army extraordinaries. They consist-
ed of items which had not been foreseen,
and could not therefore be made matter of
estimate in the first instance. The mode
pursued was, to take a vote for a certain
sum; and, in the next session of parlia.

Bill of Pains and Penalties


ment, the items under that head were laid
before the House. In this instance, he
thought that the expenses incurred might
as properly be paid out of the civil con-
tingencies, as matters that were connect-
ed. with the defence of the kingdom. As
to the law expenses, there might, but
he could not speak positively on the sub-
ject, be another fund from which they
might be defrayed; because a large sum
had been voted to defray law expenses of
a public nature.
Mr. Creevey said, there was a differ-
ence between the explanation by the
noble lord and that which had been offer-
ed by the right hon. gentleman. The
former had pointed to the secret-service
money as the fund from whence the ex-
penses were to be defrayed; while the
latter spoke of the civil contingencies.
Be that, however, as it might, it was
clear that, if the money were to be grant-
ed out of any public fund, ministers ought
to come with some proposition to parlia-
ment on the subject. He was sure that
the noble lord's construction of the act
by which the secret-service money was
regulated was not correct. If it were, if
ministers could take such sums of money
as those that had been mentioned, from
that fund, under the plea that this pro-
ceeding came within the meaning of secret
service, the most dangerous consequences
might follow. If, when his majesty chose
to follow his wife abroad, and to make
efforts to procure evidence against her,
such a proceeding, could be supposed to
come under the act, as one, the expenses
of which should be defrayed out of the
secret-service money, it was time that the
act should be revised, and that some means
should be devised by parliament to pre-
vent such an abuse of that fund. With
respect to his hon. friend's motion, of
course, he would only be able to procure
the gross amount of the expenditure.
But here he might be allowed to observe
that, if the bill did not come to this House,
it would then be a mere private business;
there would be no claim whatever on that
House to make good the expense. What
then would ministers do ? The only course
left them would be, to apply to the king's
private purse-a course which, he be-
lieved, they would not very readily
Mr. Bennet wished to know, at what
precise period the noble lord deemed the
proceeding to be one to which secret-ser-
vice money was no longer applicable.

101] against her Majesty,
Lord Castlereagh said, the proceeding
became of a public nature from the time
the message was sent down to both
Houses of Parliament. The sums taken
from the fund for secret service would be
laid before parliament in the same manner
as the expenses incurred for the defence
of her majesty.
Mr. Hume wished to know whether the
Milan commission had acted from the
outset under the sanction and with the
approbation of his majesty's government?
Lord Castlereagh said, it had the full
knowledge and approbation of his majes-
ty's ministers from the beginning. It
was adopted in order to prepare for car-
rying on the proceeding in its present
form, if the charges were gravely sup-
ported; and, on the other hand to set the
matter at rest if they were found to rest
on no solid foundation.
Sir Gerard Noel said, his decided opi-
nion was, that the House would act cri-
minally, if it consented to burthen the
public with one shilling of the expense.
Lord Castlereagh said, he was ready to
agree to a motion for an account of the
expenses incurred on both sides in the
proceeding now pending against tlhe
Queen, as far as the same could be made
Mr. Whitbread accordingly withdrew
his motion, and the motion suggested by
lord Castlereagh was put and agreed to.

rose, to present a petition from the burgh
of Montrose deprecating the proceedings
that were now in progress against her ma-
jesty. He could not avoid expressing his
surprise at the observations of an hon.
gentleman (Mr. K. Douglas), who, in the
course of his speech, had called on his
majesty's ministers to devise some means
by which the liberty of the press might
be checked, and by which the demonstra-
tion of public feeling, manifested at dif-
ferent meetings convened for the purpose
of addressing her majesty, might be pre-
vented. The respectable body whose pe-
tition he held in his hand, had met, and
had addressed her majesty; and honour-
able members had not, he conceived, any
right to condemn them or others for pur-
suing that line of conduct. In his opinion,
those who assembled on such an occasion,
to express their feelings, deserved praise
instead of censure; they acted in an open
and honourable manner, and he trusted

SEPT. 18, 1820.


that such feelings would never be banished
From England. When any thing like n-
justice appeared to be in progress, he
hoped it would not be suffered to pas un-
noticed by the people. If the hon. gen-
tleman wished to know the reason of those
meetings-if he wished to learn why sen-
timents of indignation were expressed at
them, it was because the people were
conscious that much injustice had been
done to her majesty; they felt it deeply,
and he hoped they would continue to ex-
press their opinions. With regard to the
press, was it not extremely strange that
an attack should be suddenly made against
the liberal part of it? Ministers had
funds in their hands, which, he believed,
were given, in various ways, to that por-
tion of the press by which they were sup-
ported. And, when he was touching on
this subject, he would refer to an accusa-
tion that had been recently made-whe-
ther it was true or not he could not tell-
which referred to this very point. A
charge had been made, and it was said
that it could be substantiated by se-
veral persons of credit, that part of his
majesty's plate-part of that plate which
originally belonged to the Queen-had
been seen at the table of Mr. Street, the
late editor of the Courier newspaper. He
hoped, for the honour of the country, that
no such thing had taken place. Such an
accusation ought to meet a flat denial on
the moment, for the credit of the govern-
ment. It had been said on a former oc-
casion, by a learned gentleman, that it
was not in the power of his majesty to
give away a single piece of that plate,
without the advice and concurrence of his
ministers. If, then, it had been so dis-
posed of, the whole responsibility of the
act rested with them. With respect to
any fear that might be entertained from
numbers of persons going up to her ma-
jesty with addresses, he could certainly
remove any apprehension from the hon.
gentleman, if he alluded to the presenta-
tion of the address fixed for Monday, for
the persons who were to compose the
procession then, were to go up in coaches
and four. From such persons there need
surely be no danger to be apprehended.
With respect to the procession of seamen,
he certainly saw it, and observed nothing
among the crowd, but the most peaceable
demeanor. The same was indeed the
case at all the meetings which had been
held, and their conduct reflected the
highest credit upon them. The petition

which he was now about to present was
from the provost, magistrates burgesses of
guilds, and others of the borough of
Montrose. It was unanimously agreed
to; and he feared, from the present con-
stitution of the Scotch burghs, self-elected
as the principal persons in them were,
this was the only unanimous petition
which her majesty was likely to receive
from that quarter. The very mode of
their constitution was fatal to public spirit.
The petitioners did not pronounce upon
the guilt or innocence of the Queen; but
they looked with terror and dismay to the
principle of the bill of Pains and Penalties
now brought against her, which they consi-
dered subversive of public liberty. His
own opinion was too well known to re-
quire repetition. He concurred entirely
in the sentiments contained in the peti-
tion, and thought no man could uphold
such a system of ex postfacto law without
endangering the constitution. He envied
not the man who entertained a contrary
opinion. The petitioners also prayed
that, if the bill was sent from the Lords
to that House, they should instantly re-
ject it.
Mr. Keith Douglas said, in explanation,
that the hon. gentleman must have en-
tirely mistaken what he had said. He
had never complained of the proper ex-
pression of the public feelings, nor of the
constitutional exercise of the liberty of
the press-he had merely said, that he
thought the press was now exercised in
an undue manner, and for a purpose
which seemed as if it was intended to in-
timidate parliament and the country from
adopting any measure which partook
of a particular character. To attempt
such intimidation, pending the agitation
of a great public question, was, he
thought highly unconstitutional. For his
own part, he thought it right, as a mem-
ber of parliament, to say, that no undue
influence should deter him from the strict
discharge of his public duty. With res-
pect to the mode of presenting the ad-
dresses to which he alluded, he meant
merely to say, that it wps very unusual to
assemble the people in such numbers to
go up in bodies with addresses. The ap-
pearance of such crowds was certainly
Mr. Huskinson rose, to give some ex-
planation respecting that part of the hon.
gentleman's speech in which he stated
that the person who was lately the editor
of the Courier had received a present of

Petition from Montrose.


the service of plate formerly in the pos-
session of the princess of Wales. On this
subject he rather imagined the hon. gen-
tleman made an allusion to what had fallen
from him on a former occasion respecting
Crown plate. On that occasion he cer-
tainly had said that the plate used by the
princess of Wales, being plate belonging to
the Crown, could not be alienated from it
by the personal act of the king, without
the approbation and signature of his ma-
jesty's responsible advisers. The hon.
gentleman seemed to assume that some of
this plate had been given to the late
editor of the Courier, and he inferred,
that the act of giving it was highly irre-
gular and improper. If the facts were,
indeed, as the hon. gentleman seemed to
think they were, then he should be most
ready to concur with him in saying that it
was the most irregular and censurable
proceeding which could possibly have
taken place. But therumour was utterly
unfounded [Hear]. He had inquired
of his right hon. friend if any appropria-
tion had taken place of the plate used by
the ,princess of Wales at Kensington-
palace, since it had been deposited with
the lord chamberlain; and the answer
was just as he expected-that no appro-
priation whatever of that plate had since
taken place. The fact was, as he had on
the former occasion stated, that no plate
purchased for the use of the Crown, or
for that of any of the members of the
royal family, out of the civil list money,
could be given away by the Crown as a
present, without a formal assignment,
sanctioned by the proper responsible offi-
cers. No part whatever of the plate al-
luded to had been appropriated as the
hon. member seemed disposed to think,
and it was now, as he understood, in the
lord chamberlain's custody, to be applied
as usual wherever it might be wanted for
the use of the royal family. If the hon.
member asked, whether the late editor of
the Courier had any plate presented to him
which bore the decoration of the royal
arms, he (Mr. Huskisson), not having the
pleasure of any acquaintance with that
gentleman, could not answer; all he could
say was, that he might have such plate
without its being drawn from the stores
in the lord-chamberlain's department, or
from the Crown plate. The report of the
transfer of the plate alluded to was cer-
tainly quite unfounded.
Mr. Hume expressed himself satisfied
with the explanation of the right hon.

105] Bill of Pains and Penalties.
gentleman. He was glad to hear that the
plate used by the princess of Wales still
remained with the lord chamberlain; but
was it ever out of his possession since the
princess had it ?
Mr. Huiskisson replied, certainly not.
The petition was ordered to lie on the

PORTUGAL.] Mr. Hume begged to
put a question to the noble lord opposite,
on the subject of the affairs of Portugal.
Rumours were prevalent out of doors, that
a large armament was about to be sentlout
from this country to Portugal, and that
additional corps of yeomanry and militia
were to be immediately provided to do
the duty of the regular troops, who were
to be called upon foreign service. These
steps were, it was said, to be taken in con-
sequence of the recent political occur-
rences in Portugal; and the effect of the
rumour was to be seen in the depression
and fluctuation of the funds. It was for
the purpose of removing this alarm that he
rose to ask the noble lord, whether he had
any official information from Portugal res-
pecting the recent events to which he al-
luded; and whether there was any ground
for the alarm which was felt in the monied
market ?
Lord Castlereagh thought it not quite
regular, upon the prevalence of such ru-
mours as those to which the hon. gentle-
man alluded, to put formal questions to
his majesty's ministers. To encourage
such questions would, he thought, tend
more to perplex the business of the coun-
try, than to assist its course. It was most
unreasonable to ask him to pronounce any
opinion upon transactions respecting which
he had at present hardly any information.
He trusted the hon. gentleman would
deem this a sufficient answer, in the ab-
sence of any official information upon the

Mr. Brogden brought up the Report of
the Committee appointed to inspect the
Lords Journals, with relation to the pre-
sent state of any proceedings had respect-
ing the Bill of Pains and Penalties against
her Majesty. The report having been
Lord Castlereagh moved, that the House
should at its rising adjourn to Tuesday
the 17th of October. By that day he cal-
culated the House would be able to de-
termine from the proceedings of the

SEPT. 18, 1820. [106
other House, to what farther period it
might be expedient to adjourn. If the
Bill of Pains and Penalties should come
down from the other House, it would be
obviously desirable that that House should
be called over, with a view to render the
attendance as full as possible; and, there-
fore, he thought it proper to mention his
intention to propose that the House
should be called over early in November.
This he stated now, in order that mem-
bers might be in readiness to attend
within the period of three weeks after
the day to which his present motion re-
Mr. Hume asked, whether the noble
lord had received any communication as
to the probable extent of the defence for
the Queen, or what time it was likely to
occupy? Because, if the noble lord had
had no such information, he might be
proposing to assemble the House to no
purpose, but merely that of a further ad-
Lord Castlereagh observed, that he wish-
ed the House to be left open for the exer-
cise of its own discretion as to the period
of any farther adjournment. If the bill
of Pains and Penalties should be brought
down from the other House, it was his
present intention to move a further ad-
journment to the 5th or 10th of November,
and that the House should be then called
Mr. Hume repeated, that the more dis-
tant period would be the more advisable,
because it would be more certain.
Lord Castlercagh still thought a pre-
vious meeting advisable to fix the pre-
cise time of taking the discussion which
they could on the 17th better determine
than now. This was a proceeding of too
much delicacy to be left standing over;
they ought, therefore, to watch its pro-
gress, and then determine, should the bill
come before them, the earliest possible
time when they could devote themselves
to it.
Sir Gerard Noel could not think what
the noble lord meant when he talked of
delicacy in this business. Surely he did
not mean to say that his majesty's minis-
ters had treated the House with delicacy.
On the contrary they had treated the
House' just as a huntsman did a pack of
hounds-they turned them out, and
whipped them in, just as they wanted
Lord Francis Osborne begged for some
explanation from the noble lord opposite

Colonel Browne and M. Marrielli.

on the subject of the separation of the di-
vorce part of the bill, which had been al-
luded to by a noble earl (Liverpool) in
the other House. It was intimated in the
place to which he alluded, that the di-
vorce clause would be abandoned if any
religious feeling pervaded the country
upon that part of the bill. He was
anxious for some explanation of the in-
tention of ministers upon that point.
At present, he was quite at a loss to un-
derstand the course they meant to pursue.
He could perfectly understand the degra-
dation of the Queen now, for acts done
when she was princess of Wales so long
as her case was within the sphere of the
statute of Edward 3rd; but, the moment
she was taken out of the operation of that
statute, her acts were no longer, strictly
speaking, those of the princess of Wales,
she became reduced to the level of an or-
dinary woman. How, then, could the acts
of a person placed under such circum-
stances be said to affect her character as
Queen? Suppose, for the sake of argu-
ment, that a princess of Wales had been
guilty of a thousand acts of levity, it did
not thereforefollow that she wouldn't make
a good queen. How many kings had
there not been who had departed from
the line of conduct they pursued in the
earlier period when they were princes?
Take, for instance, the example of Henry
5th, and of others whose names were to be
found in history. In his opinion, if the
princess of Wales was once taken out of
the statute of Edward, she became re-
duced to the station of an ordinary wo-
man and the acts then ascribed to her
could not be said to degrade her as Queen.
He thought it very important that the di-
vorce point should be cleared up with as
little delay as possible.
Lord Castlercagh regretted his inability
to enter into the legal construction of the
statute of Edward with the noble lord,
but he thought it obvious that the bill, as
at present framed, had two purposes-the
one affecting her majesty's rightsas Queen
and the other enacting a divorce. What
he understood his noble friend (the earl
of Liverpool) to have stated elsewhere
was this-that there was no intention
whatever of acting in opposition to any
religious feeling which might be excited;
and that the part of the bill which went
to the divorce need not be pressed, as the
measure was disclaimed for the purpose
of affording any personal remedy. Upon
public and not upon personal grounds its

necessity was to be considered. In the
presentstage of the proceedings elsewhere,
it was obviously impossible for him to give
the noble lord the explanation he required.
There was no person competent indeed to
give it as the bill was entirely open for
consideration in the other House of Par-
Adjourned till Tuesday the 17th of

Tuesday, October 3.
Their lordships met, pursuant to ad-
journment, and the House was called over.

ETTI.] The Earl of Liverpool rose. He
observed, that he felt it his duty to offer
some explanation respecting a transaction
upon which a good deal of conversation
had taken place when they last met on this
case. He alluded to a conversation res-
pecting a letter which was stated to have
been addressed to a Mr. Marrietti in this
country, from his father at Milan. When
the subject was mentioned at the period
to which he alluded, he stated that he had
been privately informed of the existence
of this letter, and of the nature of its con-
tents. Upon receiving that information,
he had felt it his duty to desire that a
letter should bewritten to colonel Browne,
calling upon him to explain any thing
which he might know of the circumstance.
He had now .in his possession a corres-
pondence which had taken place in con-
sequence of the compliance with his de-
sire, which, with the permission of the
House he would read.--[The noble earl
then proceeded to read the correspond-
ence which is inserted below.] The
noble earl having finished the reading of
the papers, said he had felt it his duty to
submit them to the House, lest any doubt
might arise as to any point in this trans-
action calculated to excite an undue im-
pression. From their contents it would
be seen that colonel Browne was so far
conscious that he had acted consistently
with his duty, that he courted any further
explanation or investigation into his con-
duct that their lordships might think ne-
cessary. The papers he held in his hand,
might, if it was their lordships pleasure,
be laid on the table.
Lord Hollandsaid, that supposing every
part of the assertions contained in the
correspondence was true, and that nothing



Colonel Browne and M. Marrielli.

on the subject of the separation of the di-
vorce part of the bill, which had been al-
luded to by a noble earl (Liverpool) in
the other House. It was intimated in the
place to which he alluded, that the di-
vorce clause would be abandoned if any
religious feeling pervaded the country
upon that part of the bill. He was
anxious for some explanation of the in-
tention of ministers upon that point.
At present, he was quite at a loss to un-
derstand the course they meant to pursue.
He could perfectly understand the degra-
dation of the Queen now, for acts done
when she was princess of Wales so long
as her case was within the sphere of the
statute of Edward 3rd; but, the moment
she was taken out of the operation of that
statute, her acts were no longer, strictly
speaking, those of the princess of Wales,
she became reduced to the level of an or-
dinary woman. How, then, could the acts
of a person placed under such circum-
stances be said to affect her character as
Queen? Suppose, for the sake of argu-
ment, that a princess of Wales had been
guilty of a thousand acts of levity, it did
not thereforefollow that she wouldn't make
a good queen. How many kings had
there not been who had departed from
the line of conduct they pursued in the
earlier period when they were princes?
Take, for instance, the example of Henry
5th, and of others whose names were to be
found in history. In his opinion, if the
princess of Wales was once taken out of
the statute of Edward, she became re-
duced to the station of an ordinary wo-
man and the acts then ascribed to her
could not be said to degrade her as Queen.
He thought it very important that the di-
vorce point should be cleared up with as
little delay as possible.
Lord Castlercagh regretted his inability
to enter into the legal construction of the
statute of Edward with the noble lord,
but he thought it obvious that the bill, as
at present framed, had two purposes-the
one affecting her majesty's rightsas Queen
and the other enacting a divorce. What
he understood his noble friend (the earl
of Liverpool) to have stated elsewhere
was this-that there was no intention
whatever of acting in opposition to any
religious feeling which might be excited;
and that the part of the bill which went
to the divorce need not be pressed, as the
measure was disclaimed for the purpose
of affording any personal remedy. Upon
public and not upon personal grounds its

necessity was to be considered. In the
presentstage of the proceedings elsewhere,
it was obviously impossible for him to give
the noble lord the explanation he required.
There was no person competent indeed to
give it as the bill was entirely open for
consideration in the other House of Par-
Adjourned till Tuesday the 17th of

Tuesday, October 3.
Their lordships met, pursuant to ad-
journment, and the House was called over.

ETTI.] The Earl of Liverpool rose. He
observed, that he felt it his duty to offer
some explanation respecting a transaction
upon which a good deal of conversation
had taken place when they last met on this
case. He alluded to a conversation res-
pecting a letter which was stated to have
been addressed to a Mr. Marrietti in this
country, from his father at Milan. When
the subject was mentioned at the period
to which he alluded, he stated that he had
been privately informed of the existence
of this letter, and of the nature of its con-
tents. Upon receiving that information,
he had felt it his duty to desire that a
letter should bewritten to colonel Browne,
calling upon him to explain any thing
which he might know of the circumstance.
He had now .in his possession a corres-
pondence which had taken place in con-
sequence of the compliance with his de-
sire, which, with the permission of the
House he would read.--[The noble earl
then proceeded to read the correspond-
ence which is inserted below.] The
noble earl having finished the reading of
the papers, said he had felt it his duty to
submit them to the House, lest any doubt
might arise as to any point in this trans-
action calculated to excite an undue im-
pression. From their contents it would
be seen that colonel Browne was so far
conscious that he had acted consistently
with his duty, that he courted any further
explanation or investigation into his con-
duct that their lordships might think ne-
cessary. The papers he held in his hand,
might, if it was their lordships pleasure,
be laid on the table.
Lord Hollandsaid, that supposing every
part of the assertions contained in the
correspondence was true, and that nothing



Colonel Broune and M. Marrietti.

either directly or indirectly, had passed
relating to the Alien bill, it did not re-
move his objections to the bill. The let-
ters that had been read confirmed the
report of the alarm which the existence
of such a power created. He must say,
that the statement that had been made
had not completely satisfied his mind, nor
indeed could any ex part declaration,
that nothing hadlpassed on the subject, be
so received by him. Colonel Browne had
said he wished to be further examined;
but no satisfactory opinion could be form-
ed unless all the parties concerned were
fully examined, and every particular mi-
nutely investigated. Every man felt that
great apprehension was excited at the
idea of the Alien bill ; and although it was
stated that nothing had passed relating to
it; yet it was evident that some conver-
sation had been held by Mr. Marrietti
with a clerk employed officially by his
majesty's government.
The Earl of Liverpool said, that in con-
sequence of what had fallen from the no-
ble lord, he should now feel it his duty to
lay the papers on the table of the House.
The Earl of Lauderdale thought the
House ought to be put in possession of
the original letter of the elder Mr. Mar-
The Papers were then laid on the table.
The following are Copies of the said Pa-

Letterfrom Lieutenant Colonel Browne with
three Inclosures.
CoPY of a Letter from Lieutenant Colonel
Browne to the Earl of Clanwilliam, dated
Milan, September 20th, 1820; explana.
tory of the allusions made to the name
of Lieut. Colonel Browne in Mr. Mar-
rietti's letter to his son, with three inclo-
Milan, 20th Sept. 1820.
My lord;-I have received your lordships
letter of the 5th inst. written to me by direc-
tion of viscount Castlereagh.
Perhaps the best reply I could make to its
contents would be, that I had never spoken
one syllable to the father of Mr. Joseph
Marrietti on the subject of his son's conduct
in London.
I remember, however, that some time
since one of the clerks of the respectable
banking-house of which Mr. Marrietti is the
head, having called upon me to settle some
accounts, I mentioned to him my having
heard from London that the younger Marrietti
had visited Mr. Sacchini, and had made in-
quiries into the nature of the evidence he had

formerly given. I added, that such occupa-
tion appeared to me very unnecessary, as in-
formation of that nature could not possibly be
interesting to a person whose pursuits were
quite of a different tendency.
I made this remark with so much indiffer.
ence, and, in fact, considered the affair of so
little importance, that it never again entered
my thoughts. In consequence, however, of
your lordship's letter, I wrote immediately to
Mr. Albertoni (the name of the clerk to whom
I thus casually mentioned the matter) a letter
of which the inclosure No. I is a copy, and
received from him an instant reply, of which
No. 2 is the original.
Mr. Marrietti himself, the father of the
young man in question, on learning the inter-
pretation that had been given to the letter
which he had written in confidence to his son,
addressed to me the letter of which No. 3 is
also the original.
I trust, when these papers shall have been
submitted by your lordship to his majesty's
government. I shall stand acquitted of hav-
ing so far forgotten my situation and charac-
ter, as to have ventured an unauthorized and
powerless menace against a respectable indi-
vidual under their protection, the employment
of which would not only have been decidedly
contrary to the spirit and letter of my in-
structions, but injurious to the interests of
justice itself, before whose tribunal I shall be
ever forward to render the strictest account of
the delicate and painful duty which has been
confided to me. I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) J. H. BROWNE.
The Right hon. the Earl of
Clanwilliam, &c. &c. &c.

No. I.-TRANsLATron of a Letter from Co-
lonel Browne to Mr. Albertoni.
Milan, 17th Sept. 1820.
Sir-A letter written by Mr. Marrietti to his
son, who is in London, seems to have created
a belief that I had so far forgotten my duty
and character as to have threatened the latter
with being placed under the surveillance of
the British police, and even with an intention
on the part of the British government to com-
pel him to quit England under the operation
of the Alien bill, in consequence of some
communications which he had with M.
Sacchini, a witness against the Queen.
Having never conversed with Mr. Marrietti,
his father, on this subject, nor with any one,
except yourself one morning when you were
at my house settling some accounts, I beg
you will have the goodness to declare tome,
explicitly and by letter, all you can recollect
on this subject, and to detail it as truly and
fairly as possible.-Acccpt, &c.
(Signed) J. H. BROWNE.
To Mr. Albertoni, at Messrs. Marrietti,
brothers, bankers, Milan.

OCT. 3, 1820. [110


No. II.-TRANSLATION of a Letter from M.
Albertoni to Lieutenant Colonel Browne.
Milan, Sept. 17, 1820.
Sir-It is with regret equal to the respect
which I feel towards you, that I have just
learnt that the meaning of a letter written by
M. Marrietti to his son has been so misunder-
stood as to cause to be imputed to you the
communication of an intention on the part of
the British government to place the latter
under surveillance, or to order him to quit
England, on account of some conversations
he had held with Mr. Sacchini, a witness
against the Queen.
I recollect your having told me one morning,
,when I happened to call upon you on busi-
ness, thatyou hadlheardfromEngland thatour
M. Joseph Marrietti had interfered in this af-
fair, and that you could not but consider such
conduct as indiscreet, and foreign to his busi-
ness in London. I well remember that I con-
sidered this communication to be simply your
own private opinion, and far from being an
expression from authority or a menace. As
to what has been asserted with regard to the
Alien bill, the provisions of which are wholly
unknown to me, it is a duty I owe to your
open and honourable character upon all occa-
sions, to declare explicitly that you have never
given' me the slightest reason to be apprehen-
sive for the personal safety or protection of
our Mr. Joseph Marrietti. I ought to add,
that I have thought it my duty to beg the
father of the said J. Marrietti to write to his
son, and advise him not to interfere in an
affair so unconnected with his occupations,
and to observe that wise and discreet line of
conduct for which he has ever been distin.
guished. If in writing to him his father made
use of strongexpressions, it is not to you, Sir,
that they are to be attributed, but to that con-
fidence and paternal affection alone by which
they were dictated.-Pray accept the senti-
ments of esteem with which, &c.
(Signed) ALBERTONI, of the House
of P. and J. Marrietti.
No. III.-TRANSLATION of a Letter from M.
Marrietti to Lieutenant Colonel Browne.
Milan, 19th Sept. 1S20.
Most esteemed Colonel-I have heard with
particular regret that your name has been
compromised on the subject of a conversation
which has been supposed to have taken place
between you and me relating to my son Jo-
seph, at present in London; I therefore con-
sider it my duty to declare, as I do declare
upon my honour, that no conversation ever
took place between you and me directly upon
such subject.
If the expressions contained in my letter to
my son be rather strong, it is to be attributed
to my wish that a lively impression should be
made upon him by advice on my part, tend-
ing to prove to him the necessity of his ad-
hering to the system pursued by myself,

never to interfere with affairs unconnected
with his own business. I am beyond measure
concerned, that a construction should have
been put upon my letter directly contrary to
my intentions, a construction which has fur-
nished matter for discussions totally incon-
sistent and ill-founded. My regret on this
occasion is increased, on observing that such
a construction should have given rise to any
doubts asto the conduct of an individual whose
distinguished and honourable character has
been, ~rom long experience, well known to me:
I consider you, Sir, as incapable of using the
threats attributed to you, as your government
of carrying them into execution. In thus
makingknown to you thesentiments by which
I am animated on this occasion, I have the
agreeable satisfaction of fulfilling a duty in-
cumbent upon me; and I avail myself of the
opportunity to assure you of my perfect es-
teem, &c.
To Lieut. Colonel Browne, &c. &c.

of the day being read for the further con-
sideration and second reading of the bill,
intituled An Act to deprive Her Majesty
Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the title,
prerogatives, rights, privileges, and ex-
emptions of Queen Consort of this realm,
and to dissolve the marriage between his
majesty and the said Caroline Amelia
Elizabeth;" and for hearing counsel for
and against the same; Counsel were ac-
cordingly called in.

Then Mr. Brougham, the Attorney-
General of the Queen, opened the
Mr. Brougham-
May it please your Lordships-
The time is now come when I feel that
I shall truly stand in need of all your in-
dulgence. It is not merely the august
presence of this assembly which embar-
rasses me; for I have oftentimes had ex-
perience of its condescension-nor the
novelty of this proceeding that perplexes
me; for the mind gradually gets recon-
ciled to the strangest things-nor is it
the magnitude of this cause that oppresses
me; for I am borne up and cheered by
that conviction of its justice, which I
share with all mankind; but, my lords, it
is the very force of that conviction, the
knowledge that it operates universally,
the feeling that it operates rightly, which
now dismays me with the apprehension,

Bill efPains and Penaltkss

113] against her Majesty.
that my unworthy mode of handling it,
may, for the first time, injure it; and,
while others have trembled for a guilty
client, or been anxious in a doubtful case,
or crippled with a consciousness of some
.hidden weakness, or chilled by the influ-
ence, or dismayed by the hostility, of pub-
lic opinion, i, knowing that here there is
no guiltiness to conceal, nor any thing,
save the resources of perjury to dread,
am haunted with the apprehension, that
my feeble discharge of this duty may for
the first time cast that cause into doubt,
and may turn against me for condemna-
tion those millions of your lordships coun-
trymen, whose jealous eyes are now watch-
ing us, and who will not fail to impute it
to me, if your lordships should reverse
the judgment which the Case for the
Charge has extorted from them. And I
feel, my lords, under this weight so
troubled, that I can hardly at this mo-
ment, with all the reflection which the in-
dulgence of your lordships has accorded
to me, compose my spirits to the discharge
of my professional duty, under the weight
of that grave responsibility which accom-
panies it. It is no light addition to this
feeling, that I foresee, though at some
distance, happily, that, before these pro-
ceedings close, it may be my unexampled
lot to discharge a duty, in which the
loyalty of a good subject may, among the
ignorant, among the thoughtless-cer-
tainly not with your lordships for a mo-
ment-suffer an impeachment.
My lords; the princess Caroline of
Brunswick arrived in this country in the
year 1795-the niece of our sovereign,
the intended consort of his heir apparent,
and herself not a very remote heir to the
crown of these realms. But Inow go back
to that period, only for the purpose of
passing over all the interval which elapsed
between that arrival and her departure in
1814. I rejoice that, for the present at
least, the most faithful discharge of my
duty permits me to draw this veil; but
I cannot do so without pausing for an in-
stant, to guard myself against a misrepre-
sentation to which I know this cause may
not unnaturally be exposed, and to assure
your lordships most solemnly, that if I did
not think that the cause of the Queen, as
attempted to be established by the evi-
dence against her, not only does not re.
quire recrimination at present-not only
imposes no duty of even uttering one
whisper by way of attack, by way of in-
sinuation, against the conduct of her illus-

OCT. 3, 1820. [114
trious husband-but that it prescribes to
me, for the present, silence upon this
great and painful head of the case-I so-
lemnly assure your lordships, that but for
this conviction, my lips on that branch
would not be closed; for, in discretionally
abandoning the exercise of that power
which I feel I have, in postponing for the
present the statement of that case of
which I am possessed, I feel confident
that I am waving a right which I have, and
abstaining from the use of materials which
are mine. And let it not be thought, my
lords, that if either now I did conceive, or
if hereafter I should so far be disappointed
in my estimate of the failure of the Case
against me, as to feel it necessary to exer-
cise that right-let no man vainly suppose,
that not only I, but that any, the youngest
member of the profession would hesitate
one moment in the fearless discharge of
that duty. I once before took leave to
remind your lordships-which was un-
necessary, but there are many whom it
may be needful to remind-that an advo-
cate, by the sacred duty of his connection
with his client, knows, in the discharge of
that office, but one person in the world,
that client and none other. To save that
client by all expedient means-to protect
that client at all hazards and costs to all
others, and among others to himself-is
the highest and most unquestioned of his
duties; and he must not regard the alarm,
the suffering, the torment, the destruction,
which he may bring upon any other; nay,
separating even the duties of a patriot
from those of an advocate, he must go on
reckless of the consequences, if his fate it
should unhappily be, to involve his coun-
try in confusion for his client.
But, my lords, I am not reduced to this
painful necessity. I feel that if I were to
touch that branch of the Case now, until
any event shall afterwards show that un-
happily I am deceiving myself-I feel that
if I were now to approach that branch of
the Case, I should seem to give up the
higher ground of innocence on which I
put it; I should seem to be justifying
when I plead not guilty ; I should seem to
argue in extenuation and in palliation of
offences, or levities, or improprieties, the
least and the lightest of which I stand here
to deny. For it is false, as has been said-
it is foul and false as those who dared to
say, who, pretending to discharge the
higher duties to God, have shown, that
they know not the first of their duties to
their fellow-creatures-it is foul and false

and scandalous in those who have said
(and they know that it is so who have
dared to 'say), that there are impro-
prieties admitted to be proved against the
Queen. I deny that the admission has
been made. I contend that the evidence
does not prove them. I will show you
that the evidence disproves them. One
admission, doubtless, I do make; and
let my learned friends who are of coun-
sel for the Bill take all the benefit of it,
for it is all that they have proved by
their evidence. I grant that her ma-
jesty left this country, and went to re-
site in Italy. I grant that her society
was chiefly foreign. I grant that it was
an inferior society to that in which she
once moved in this country. I admit,
iny lords, that while here, and while
'hippy in the protection-not perhaps,
of her own family, after the fatal event
which deprived it of its head; but while
enjoying the society of your lordships and
the families of your lordships, I grant
that the Queen moved in a more choice,
in 'perhaps a more dignified society, than
ie did in Italy. And the charge against her
is, that she has associated with Italians,
instead of her own countrymen and
countrywomen; and that, instead of the
peeresses of England, she has sometimes
associated with Italian nobility, and some-
times with persons of the commonalty of
that country. But, who are they that
bring this charge ? Others may accuse
her-others may blame her for going
abroad-others may tell tales of the con-
sequences of living among Italians, and
of not associating with the women of
her country, or of her adopted country;
but it is not your lordships that have any
right to say so. It is not you, my lords,
that can fling this at her majesty. You
are the last persons in the world-you,
who now presume to judge her, are the
last persons in the world so to charge her;
bfr you are the witnesses whom she must
tall to vindicate her from that charge.
You are the last persons who can so
charge her; for you, being her wit-
nasses, have been also the instigators
of that only admissible crime. While she
was here, 'she courteously opened the
doors 'of her palace to the families of
your lordships. :She graciously conde-
scended to itix ietrself, in the habits of
most familiar lre, 'with those virtuous
and distinguished persons. She con'de-
sciended to cotrt your society-and, as
long as it suited purposes not of hers-as

Bill of Pains and Penalties


long as it was subservient to views not of
her own-as long as it served interests in
which she had no concern-she did not
court that society in vain. Bat when
changes took place-when other views
arose-when that power was to be re-
tained which she had been made the in-
strument of grasping-when that lust of
power and place was to be continued its
gratification, to the first gratification of
which she had been made the victim-
then her doors were opened in vain ; then
that society of the peeresses of England
was withholden from her; then she was
reduced to the alternative humiliating in-
deed, for I say that her condescension
was no humiliation. She was only lower-
ing herself, by omitting the distinction of
rank to enjoy the first society in the world.
But then it pleased you to reduce her to
what was really humiliation-either to ac-
knowledge that you had deserted her, to
seek the company of those who now made
it a favour, which she saw they unwillingly
granted, or to leave the country and have
recourse to other company. I say then,
'my lords, that it is not here that I must
be told-it is not in the presence of
your lordships I must expect to hear any
one lift his voice to complain, that the
princess of Wales went to reside in Italy,
and associated with those whose society
she neither ought to have chosen, nor per-
haps would have clhosen-certainly would
not have chosen--perhaps I may say'ought
not to have chosen-had she been in other
or happier circumstances.
In the midst of this, and of so much
suffering as to an ingenuous mind such
conduct 'could not fail to cause, she still
had one resource, and which, for a space,
was allowed to remain to her-I need
hardly say I mean the comfort of knowing
that she till possessed the undiminished
attachment and grateful respect of her
justly respected and deeply lamented
daughter. An event took place which, if
all others, most excites the feelings of a
parent-that daughter was about to form
a union upon which the happiness--upon
which, alas the Queen knew too well
how much the happiness-or the misery
of future life depended. No announce-
ment was made to her majesty of the pro-
jected alliance. All England occupied
with the subject-Europe looking onwith
an interest which it certainly bad in so
great an event-England had it an-
nouweed; Europe had it announced-bat
the one person to whom no notice of it

1'17] against her Majesty.
was given, was the mother of the bride
who was to be espoused; and all that she
had done then to deserve this treatment
was, with respect to one of the illustrious
parties, that she had been proved, by his
evidence against her, to be not guilty of
the charge; and, with respect to his ser-
vents, that they had formerly used lier as
the tool by which their ambition was to be
gratified, The marriage itself was con-
sunmmated. Still, no notice thereof was
communicated to the Queen. She heard
iL accidentally by a courier who was going
to announce the intelligence to the Pope,
that ancient, intimate, much-valued ally of
the Pcotestant Crown of these realms. A
prospect grateful to the whole nation, in-
teresting to all Europe, was now afforded,
that the marriage would be a fruitful
source of stability to the royal family of
these realms. The whole of that period,
painfully interesting to a parent as well
as to a husband, was passed without the
slightest communication; and if the prin-
cess Charlotte's own feelings had prompted
her to open one, she was in a state of
anxiety of mind and of delicacy of frame,
in consequence of that her first preg-
sancy, which made it dangerous to have a
struggle between power and authority on
the one hand, and affection and duty on
the other. An event truly fatal followed,
which plunged the whole of England into
grief and gloom; in which all our foreign
neighbours sympathized: and while, with a
due regard to the feelings of those foreign
allies, and even of strange powers and
princes,with whom we had no alliance, that
event was speedily communicated by parti-
cular messengers toeach,the person in allthe
world who had the deepest interest in that
event-the person whose feelings, above
those of all the rest of mankind, were
most overwhelmed and stunned by it,
was left to be stunned and overwhelmed
by it accidentally; as she had, by acci-
dent, heard of the marriage. But, if she
had not heard the dreadful news by acci-
dent, she would, ere long, have felt it;
for the decease of the princess Charlotte
was communicated to her mother, by the
issuing of the Milan Commission and the
commencement of the proceedings for
the third time against her character and
her lix
See% my lords, the unhappy fate of this
iluatrious woman! It has been her lot
always to lose her surest stay, her best
protector, when the dangers most thick-
ened around her ; and, by a coincidence

OCT. 3, s82. [1i
almost miraculous, there has hardly been
one of her defenders withdrawn from her,
that his loss has not been the signal of an
attack upon her existence. Mr. Pitt was
her earliest defender and friend in this
country. He died in 1806; and, but a
few weeks afterwards, the first inquiry
into the conduct of her royal high ess.
began. He left her a legacy to Mr. Per-
ceval, her firm, dauntless, most able advo-
cate. And, no sooner had the hand of an
assassin laid Mr. Perceval low, than siie,
felt the calamity of his death, in the re-
newal of the attacks, which his gallantry,
his skill, and his invariable constancy had:
discomfited. Mr. Whitbread then un-
dertook her defence; and, when that ca-
tastrophe happened, which all good men
lament, without any distinction of party
or sect, again commenced the distant
grumbling of the storm; for it then, hap-
pily, was never allowed to approach her,
because her daughter stood her friend,
and there were who worshipped the rising
sun. But, when she lost that amiable
and beloved daughter, all which might
have been expected here-all which might
have been dreaded by her if she had not
been innocent-all she did dread-be-
cause, who, innocent or guilty, loves per-
secution; who delights in trial, when cha-
racter and honour are safe ?-all was at
once allowed to burst upon herhead; and
the operations commenced by the Milan
Commission. And, my lords, as if there
were no possibility of the Queen losing a
protector without some most important
act being played in this drama against her,
the day which saw the venerable remains
of our revered sovereign consigned to
the tomb-of that sovereign who, from
the first outset of the princess in English
life, had been her constant and steady
defender-that same sun ushered the
ringleader of the hand of perjured wit-
nesses into the palace of his illustrious
successor! Why, my lords, do I mention
these things ? Not for the sake of making
so trite a remark, as that trading politi-
cians are selfish-that spite is twin-bro-
ther to ingratitude-that nothing will
bind base natures-that favours conferred,
and the duty of gratitude neglected, only
make those natures the more malignant.
My lords, the topic, would be trite and
general, and I should be ashamed to
trouble your lordships with it; but I say
this once more, in order to express my
deep sense of the unworthiness with which
Inow succeed suchpowerfui1efenders, and

my alarm lest my exertions should fail to
do what theirs, had they been living, must
have accomplished.
My lords; I pray your attention for a
few moments, to what all this has resulted
in. It has ended in the getting up of a
story, to the general features of which I
am now first about to direct the attention
of your lordships. But I must begin by
praying you to recollect what the Evi-
dence has not only not proved, but is
very, likely to have discharged from the
memory of your lordships-I mean the
Opening of my learned friend, the Attor-
ney-General. Now, he shall himself des-
cribe, in his own words, the plan and the
construction of that opening statement.
It is most material for your lordships to
direct your attention to this; because
much of the argument rests on this com-
parative view. He did not then make a
general speech, without book, without
direction or instruction; but his speech
was the spoken evidence; it was the
transcript of that which he had before
him; and the way in which that trans-
cript was prepared, I leave your lord-
ships, even uninformed to a certain de-
gree as you now must needs be, to con-
jecture. I will," said my learned
friend-and every one who heard him
make the promise, and who knows his
strictly honourable nature, must have ex-
pected its accurate fulfilment-" I will
most conscientiously state nothing which
I do not, in my conscience, believe I shall
be able to substantiate in proof; but I will
withhold nothing, upon which I have the
same conviction."* I believed the attor-
ney-general when I heard him promise.
I knew that he spoke from his con-
science; and now that I see he has
failed in the fulfilment, I equally well know
that there is but one cause for the failure
-that he told you what he had in his
brief, which he had got into his brief froir
the mouths of the witnesses. He could
get it in no other way but that. Thli
witnesses who had told falsehoods before,
were scared from repeating them here
before your lordships. Now, I will give
your lordships one or two specimens o
this; because I think these samples wil
enable you to form a pretty accurate esti
mate, not only of the value of that evi
dence, where it comes up to my learned
friend's Opening, but also to form a pretty
good guess of the manner in which tha

See Vol. 2, p. 712.

Bill of Pains and Penalties

part of it which did succeed was prepared
for that purpose. 1 will merely take one
or two of the leading witnesses, and com-
pare one or two of the matters which my
learned friend opened, and will not tire
you with the manner in which they told
you the story.
First, my learned friend said, that the
Evidence of the Queen's improper con-
duct would come down almost until the
time at which I have now the honour of
addressing your lordships."* I am quot-
ing the words of my learned friend, from
the short-hand writer's notes. In fact,
by the Evidence, that almost" means up
to the present time, all but three years;
that is to say, all but a space of time,
exactly equal to that space of time over
which the other part of the Evidence ex-
tends.-At Naples, where the scene is
laid which is first so sedulously brought
before your lordships, as if the first con-
nection between the two parties began
upon that occasion-as if that were the
night when the guilty intentions, which
they long had been harbouring, but for
want of opportunity had not been able
to fulfil, were at length gratified-at
Naples-I pray your lordships to attend
to the manner in which he opened this
first and most important branch of his
whole case, and which if it fails, that fai-
lure must affect the statement of circum-
stances, not only in this part in the Evi-
dence, but in all the subsequent stages
of it-How does my learned friend open
that part of his case ? I shall show you,"
says he, that there are clear, decisive
marks of two persons having slept in the
Sbed-the night that the Queen camehome,
the second night she was at Naples, she
Returned early from the Opera; she went
to her own room, from thence she re-
Spaired to Bergami's room, where Bergami
himself was-the next day she was not
Visible till an unusually late hour, and
I was inaccessible to the nobility of Naples.-
SEvery one of these assertions, rising one
Above another in succession and import-
,ance, but even the lowest of them of
Great moment to the case against her ma-
f jesty-every one of them not only is
I false, but is negatived by the Witness
* produced to support them. Demont gives
- no decisive marks;" she gives a doubt-
1 ful and hesitating case. With one excep-
y tion, there is nothing specific, even in
See Vol. 2, p. 743.
t See Vol. 2, p. 747.


121] against her Majesty. OCT. 3, 1820. [122
what she swears; and with that I shall t" Then," says my learned friend, in
afterwards come to deal. But she denies this instance which I am now going to
that she knew where the Queen went state, leaving us to our general suspi-
when she first left her own bed-room. cions as to where he got his knowledge
She denies that she knew where Bergami upon the other circumstances, and corn-
was at that time. She says affirmatively ing to something more specific, I am
that the next morning the Queen was up instructed to state," and in another in-
and alert by the usual time. Not one stance, the witness says," so and so,
tittle of evidence does she give, or any showing he was reading the witness's
body else, of her having refused access deposition. I am instructed to state,
to any one person who called; nor is any that the dress which the princess had
evidence given (to make it more com- assumed, or rather the want of it in part,
plete) that any body called that morning, was extremely indecent and disgusting;"*
Then come we to that which my learned and he adds afterwards, in commenting
friend opened with more than even his upon it, that it was of the most inde-
wonted precision. We know that all the cent description;" so that she was, on
rest was from his instructions. It could account of that indecency, on account
be from no other source. He had never of the disgusting nature of it, by those
been in Italy. Neither he nor my learned who actually saw it, hooted from the public
friend, the solicitor-general, have given theatre. Your lordships will recollect
us any idea of their knowing what sort of what it came to-that the princess was
a country it is-that they know any thing there in a dress that was exceedingly
of a masquerade-that they know any ugly-the maid Demont said, in a very
thing of a Cassino. My learned friend ugly" dress; and that was all my learned
has represented as if the being black- friend could get her now to assert-that
balled at that Cassino is ruin to a person's it was without form, and ugly-masques
character; forgetting who may be the came about her, and she, unknown in her
members of the society at that Cassino- own masque-for, strange as it may
that there may be a colonel Browne-that appear to my learned friend, a person at
it is held at the very place where the Milan a masquerade endeavours to be disguised-
Commission was held. But," says my was attacked from joke or from spite-
learned friend, the solicitor-general, oftener from joke than from spite; her
" who ever heard of the wife of a royal own dress being of that ugly description
prince of this country going disguised to -from what reason is left to this moment
a masquerade? Who would have thought unexplained.
that,'being disguised, and being on her My lords; I should fatigue your lord-
way to a masquerade, she did not go in ships if I were to go over other instances,
her own state coach, with her livery ser- I shall only mention that at Messina.
vants, with a coachman bedizened with Voices are said to have been heard. The
lacquays plaistered, with all the pomp, attorney-general opened, that at Messina
pride, and circumstance" of a court or a he should prove, that the princess and Ber-
birth-day, but that she went in a com- gami were locked up in the same room and
mon hired carriage, without the royal were heard speaking together. That is
arms, without splendor and garb, out at now reduced, by the evidence, to certain
the back-door, instead of issuing out of voices being heard, she cannotsay whose.
the front door, with all the world specta- At Savona, where my learned friend gives
tors. Nay, I only wonder that my learned you, as he generally does in his speech,
friend did not state, that she went to a the very day of the month, the 12th of
masquerade in a domino, and a false face April, he stated, that the only access to
My lords, it was not, therefore, from their the princess's room was through Ber-
own personal observation, certainly not gami's, where there was no bed, but that
from having been present at these royal in the princess's room there was a large
recreations of Murat's court, that my bed. The witness provedonlyone of those
learned friends obtained their knowledge particulars out of three.
of this cause; but they have it from De- Passing over a variety of particulars,
month or Majoochi; the witnesses who have I shall give only one or two instances
been examined again andagain; and who from Majoochi's and Sacchi's evidence.
have again and again told the same story; The princess remained in Bergami's
but which story being founded in fact,
they now recollected only the part that See Vol. 2, p. 749.
was trje, and forgot what was untrue.

room a very considerable time," the night
that Majoochi swore she went into his
room, and there the Witness heard them
kissing each other," says the attorney.
general. Majoochi says, she remained
there one of the times ten minutes, the
other fifteen; and that he only heard a
whispering. Now, as to Sacchi. The
story as told by my learned friend, from
the brief in his hand, and which I have no
doubt my learned friend has in his papers,
and that Sacchi had told before at Milan,
is, that a courier one night returned from
Milan, that is, that he, Sacchi, returned
as a courier from Milan, for it was he
whom he meant-that finding Bergami
out of his own room, he looked about and
saw him come out of the Queen's room
undressed-that all the family were in
bed-that he observed him-that he spoke
to him-and that Bergami explained it by
saying, he had gone, hearing his child
cry, to see what was the matter; and de-
sired him not to mention any thing about
it.*-Sacchi negatives this, as far as a
man speaking to so unusual a circum-
stance, which if it had happened, must
have forcibly impressed his recollection,
can do so. He denies it as strongly as a
man can, by denying all recollection of
any such particulars, although not for
want of examination; for my learned
friend, the solicitor-general, questions him
over and over again, and he cannot get
him to come within a mile of such a fact.
Then come we to the disgraceful scenes,
as the attorney-general described them,
at the Barona; which he said-and if they
had been as they were represented to
him, I doubt not he used a very fair ex-
pression-he did not tell us what they
were, but they were so disgraceful, that
it rather made that house deserve the
name of a brothel, more than that of a
palace, or a place fit for the reception of
her majesty, or a person of the least
virtue or delicacy."* Here, there is a
most entire failure of proof from all the
Then we are told, that at Naples the
attendants were shocked and surprised by
the conduct of the Queen-that in Sicily
no doubt was entertained by them, from
what they saw of the familiarities between
the parties, that a criminal intercourse was
going on there. Not one of those
attendants describes that effect to have

See VoL 2, p. 787.
t See Vel, 2. p. 788.

Bill of Pains and Penalties


been produced upon their minds by what
they saw. I shall afterwards come to
what they did see; but they do not tell
you this, though frequently prompted to
do it. Then, as to the visiting of the no-
bility-that the Queen's society was given
up by the ladies of rank of her own coun-
try, from the moment she left this country
-that they all fell away-in short, that
she was treated abroad, I know not from
what motive, with something of the same
abandonment with which she was treated in
this country; I well know from what mo-
tive. All this is disproved by the evidence.
How came my learned friend to forget
the fact of that most respectable woman,
lady Charlotte Lindsay, joining her at
Naples, after her conduct had been ob-
served by all the servants; with which
servants lady Charlotte Lindsay naturally
lived on terms of intimacy, and between
which servants, I have no idea that any
thing of that grave-like secrecy existed,
which each of them has represented to
have existed between themselves up to the
time they came to the Cotton Garden
d6p6t, and up to the moment that they
brought from that dfp6t to your lordships'
bar, the resources of their perjury. Lady
Charlotte Lindsay, lord and lady Glen-
bervie, Mrs. Falconet and others had no
doubt some intercourse with those
Neapolitan servants, all of whom are re-
presented as having been perfectly as-
tounded with the impropriety, nay the
indecency of the conduct of their royal
mistress; and yet those persons are
proved to have joined her, some at
Naples, some at Rome, others at Leg-
horn, and to have associated with her, in
spite of all this open and avowed inde.
But, even to a much later period, and
in higher quarters, the Queen's company
has been proved, by my learned friend's
case, not to have been treated abroad with
the neglect which it experienced here.
She has been, in the first place; courte-
ously received, even after her return from
the long voyage, by the legitimate sove-
reign prince of Baden, a prince with a le-
gitimate origin, though with a revolu-
tionary accession to his territory. Equally
well received was she by the still more
legitimate Bourbons at Palermo; but
courted was her society by the legitimate
Starts of Sardinia, the heirs legitimate
as contra-distinguished from the heirs of
liberty and of right, to the throne of this
realm-the illegitimate heirs I call them;

123S against her Majesty.
but the true legitimates of the world, as
some are disposed to call them who do
not hold that allegiance, at least who dis-
guise that allegiance, to the house of
Brunswick, which, as good subjects, we
all cherish. Nay, even a prince who, I
doubt not, will rank, in point of antiquity
and family, even higher than the legiti-
mate Bourbons and Stuarts-I mean his
highness the dey of Tunis, received her
majesty as if she was respected by all his
lighter-coloured brethren in tire other
parts of the globe. And she was also re-
ceived, in the same respectful manner,
by the representative of the king at
Constantinople. So that wherever she
has gone, she has met from all ranks,
the only persons of authority and note
whom she could have had as 'her vindica-
tors. She was received by all those per-
sons of authority and note, not only not
as my learned friend expected to prove,
but in the very reverse manner, and as
from the evidence I have now described
Suffer me now, my lords, to solicit
your lordships indulgence, while I look a
little more narrowly into the case which
was thus opened, and not proved by the
attorney-general. The first remark which
must strike any one who attends to this
discussion, is one which pervades the whole
case, and is of no small importance. Is
it not remarkable, that such a case, pos-
sessed as they are of such witnesses,
should have been left so lame and short
as they must admit it to be left, when
contrasted with their Opening? Was ever
a case of criminal conversation brought
into court under such favourable auspices?
Who are your witnesses ? The very two
who, of all man and woman kind, must
know most of 'this offence, not only if it
were in the daily course of being com-
mitted, but if committed at all-I mean,
the body servants of the two parties, the
valet of the man, and the lady's own
waiting maid. Why, in common eases,
these are- the very witnesses the counsel
are panting to have and bring into court.
From the form of the action, they can
hardly ever venture to bring the men's
servant; but if they can get hold of one
by good fortune, they consider their case
must be proved; and then the only
question comes to be as to mitigation of
damages-for as to proving the fact, no
defendant would hold out. And if you
believe any .part of their case, it was not
from any over caution of the parties-it was

OcT. 8, 1,820. ` S6
not from any great restraint they imposed
on themselves, and, knowing that they were
watched, that they took care to give the
world nothing to see; because, if you:be-
lieve the evidence, they had flung off all
regard to decorum, all trammels of
restraint, all ordinary prudence; and had
given way to this guilty,passion, as if.they
were still in the hey-day of youthful
blood, and as if they were justified by
those ties which render its indulgence a
virtue rather than a crime. Yet, with all
this want of caution-all these exhibitions
of want of circumspection-the man's
serving man, and the ladies waiting
woman have not been able to prove more
than these facts which, it is pretended,
make out the charge. When I said,
however, there was no caution or circtam-
spection, I mis-stated the case. If you
believe the evidence-rand it is the great
circumstance of improbability to which I
solicit your attention-if you believe the
evidence, there was every caution used
by the parties themselves, to insure dis-
covery, which the wishes and ingenuity
of their most malignant adversary could
have devised to promote his own designs.
Observe how every part of the case is
subject to this remark; and then I leave
to your lordships confidently the inference
that must arise fiom it. You will even
find, that just in proportion as the different
acts alleged are of a suspicious or of an
atrocious nature, in exactly the same pro-
portion do the parties take especial care
that there shall be good witnesses, and
many of them, in order to prove it. It
would be a horrible case, if such features
did not belong to it; but such features
we have here abundantly; and if the wit-
nesses are to be believed, no mortal ever
acted as the Queen is represented to hve
done. Walkingarm andarm isaanat light
thing; it seldom takes place except in the
presence of witnesses, and many of these
speaking most accurately respecting it,
but sitting together in an attitude of
familiar proximity -which is ;somewhat
less equivocal, is proved by several .wit-
nesses; and those who state it to have
been done by the aid of placing the arms
round the neck, or behind the baek,:and
which accordingly raises it a step higher
-these witnesses show you this happened
when the doors were open, in the height
of the sun, in a villa where hundreds of
persons were walking, and when 'the
house and villa were filled with common
wtrkmea. Several salutes were given,;

and, as this is still higher in the scale, it
appears that never was a kiss to pass be-
tween these lovers without especial pains
being taken, that a third person should be
by to tell the story to those who did not
see it. One witness is out of the room,
while Bergami is about to take his depar-
ture on a journey from the Queen, while
in Sicily. They wait until he comes in,
and then they kiss. When at Terracina
Bergami is going to land, the whole party
are on deck. The princess and Bergami
retire to a cabin, and wait till Majoochi
enters, and then the act is perpetrated.
Sitting on a gun, or near the mast of the
ship, on the knees of the paramour, is an
act still higher in the scale of licentious-
ness-It is only proved scantily by one
witness, but of that hereafter-care is
taken that it should be perpetrated before
eleven persons. But sitting upon a gun
with the arms entwined, is such an act
as leaves nothing to the imagination, ex-
cept the granting of the last purposes of
desire-This must be done in the pre-
sence of all the crew, of all the servants,
and all the companions, by day and in
the evening. The parties might be alone
at night: then it was not done; but, at
all other times, it is done before all the
passengers and all the crew.
But the case is not left here. As your
lordships might easily suppose, with per.
sons so wary against themselves, such
firm and useful allies of their accusers,
such indispensable proofs of the case
against them are not wanting to prove the
last favour in the presence of good wit-
nesses; and accordingly, sleeping together
is not only said to have taken place ha-
bitually and nightly in the presence of all
the company and all the passengers on
board, but always, by land as well as by
sea, did every body see it, that belonged
to the party of pilgrims to Jerusalem.
Nay, so far is this carried, that Bergami
cannot retire into the anti-chamber where
the princess is to change her clothes, or
for any other purpose, without special care
being taken, that the trusty, silent, honest,
unintriguing Swiss waiting-maid shall be
placed at the door of that anti-room, and
told, You wait here: we have occasion
to retire for an hour or two and be naked
together ;" or at least, she is at liberty
to draw what inferences she pleases from
the fact.
But, my lords, I wish I could stop
here. There are features of peculiar
enormity in the other parts of this case;

Bill qf Pains and Penalties


and in proportion as thesedisgusting scenes
are of a nature to annoy every one, how-
ever unconcerned in the case, who hears
them; to disgust and almost contami-
Snate the mind of every one who is con-
demned to listen to them-in that pro-
portion is especial care taken that they
shall not be done in a corner. The place
for them is not chosen in the hidden re-
cesses of those receptacles of abomination
which the continent have too many of,
under the degraded and vilified name of
palaces-the place is not taken in the
hidden haunts which lust has degraded to
its own purposes-some island where vice
concealed itself from the public eye of
ancient times-it is not in those'palaces, in
those Capree of old, that the parties chose
to commit such abominations; but they do
it before witnesses in open day-light,
when the sun is at the meridian. And
that is not enough : the having them in
the public high-ways is not enough: but
they must have a courier of their own to
witness them, without the veil of any one
part of the furniture of a carriage, or of
their own dress, to conceal from his eye
their disgraceful situation My lords, I
ask your lordships whether vice was ever
known before so unwary; whether folly
was ever known so extravagant; whether
unthinking passion, evening the most youth-
ful period, when the passions swell high,
and the blood boils in the veins, was ever
known to act so thoughtlessly, so reck-

lessly, so foolishly, as this case compels
me to fancy? And when your lordships
have put the facts to your minds, let this
consideration dwell there, and let it ope-
rate as a check, when you come to exa-
mine the evidence by which the case is
But all this is nothing. Their kindness
to the enemy-their faithfulness to the
plot against themselves, would be left
short indeed, if it had gone no further
than this; for it would then depend upon
the good fortune of that adversary in get-
ting hold ofthatw witness; at least it might
be questionable, whether the greater part
of their precautions for their own ruin
might not have been thrown away. There-
fore, every one of these witnesses, without
any exception, is either dismissed with-
out a cause-for I say the causes are
mere flinisinesses personified--or is re-
fused to be taken back, upon his earnest
and humble solicitations, when there was
every human inducement to restore them
to favour.-My lords, this is not alL

129] against her Majesty.
Knowing what she had done; recollecting
her own contrivances; aware of all these
cunning and elaborate devices towards her
own undoing; having before her eyes the
pictures of all those schemes to render
detection inevitable and concealment im-
possible; reflecting that she had given
the last finishing stroke to this conspiracy
of her own, by turning off these witnesses
causelessly, and putting them into the
power of her enemy; knowing that that
enemy had taken advantage of her; know-
ing the witnesses were here to destroy
her, and told that if she faced them she
was undone; and desired and counselled
and implored, again and again, to bethink
her well before she ran so enormous a risk
-the Queen comes to England, and is
here, on this spot, and confronts these
witnesses whom she had herself enabled
to undo her. Menaced with degradation
and divorce, knowing that was not an
empty threat that was held out, and seeing
it was about to be accomplished, up to this
hour she refuses all endeavours towards a
compromise of her honour and her rights ;
she refuses a magnificent retreat and the
opportunity of an unrestrained indulgence
in all her criminal propensities, and even
a safeguard and protection from the court
of England, and a vindication of her
honour by the two Houses of parliament.
If, my lords, this is the conduct of guilt-
if these are the lineaments by which vice
is tobe tracedin the human frame-if these
are the symptoms of that worst of all states,
dereliction of principle carried to excess,
when it almost becomes a mental disease
-then I have misread human nature;
then I have weakly and groundlessly come
to a conclusion-for I have always under-
stood, that guilt was wary, and innocence
alone unwary.
Attend now, my lords, I beseech you,
with these comments upon the general
features of the case, to the sort of evi-
dence by which such a case is attempted
to be established. I should exhaust myself,
besides fatiguing your lordships, if I
were to pause here and make a few of the
cogent remarks which offer themselves,
upon the connection of that part of the
case which I have now gone through,
with the part I am coming to. But
there are one or two points so mate-
rial, that I cannot omit all mention of
them before I proceed further. I will
make one observation, that, if an ordinary
case could not be proved by such evi-
dence as I am now to comment upon-if

OCT. 3, 1820. [IS10
it would require very different proofs in
the most common story, if there were no
improbabilities such as I have shown-a
case such as that I have now described,
ought to be proved by the most convincing
the most pure and immaculate testimony.
My lords; I do not intend to assert-I
have no interest in stating it-that a con-
spiracy has been formed against the
Queen, by those who are the managers of
the present proceeding. I say not such
a thing. I only will show your lordships,
that if there had been such a measure re-
sorted to; that if any persons had been
minded to ruin her majesty by such a de-
vice, they could not have taken a better
course, and probably they would not
have taken a different course, from that
which I think the case of the prosecution
proves them already to have pursued. In
any such design, the first thing to be
looked to is the agents, who are to make
attacks against the domestic peace of an
individual, and to produce evidence of
misconduct, which never took place.
Who are those persons I am fancying
to exist-if their existence be conceiv-
able-who are those that they would
have recourse to, to make up a story
against the victim of their spiteful ven-
geance? First of all, they would get
the servants who have lived in the house.
Without them, it is almost impossible to
succeed: with them, there is a most bril-
liant prospect of a triumphant result.
Servants who have lived in the family
were, in fact, all that could be desired-
But, if those servants were foreigners,
who were to be well tutored in their part
abroad, and had to deliver their story
where they were unknown, to be brought
to a place to which they might never re-
turn all their days, and to speak before a
tribunal which knew no more of them than
they cared for it-whose threat they had
no reason to dread, whose good opinion
they were utterly careless of; living in a
country to which they did not care two
rushes whether they returned or not, and
knew they never could return-those were
the very identical persons such conspira-
tors would haverecourse to. But, there
is a choice among foreigners. All fo-
reigners are not made of the same ma-
terials; but, if any one country under
heaven is marked out more than all the rest
as the Officina for such a race, I say that
country is the country of Augustus and
Borgia. I speak of its perfidies, without im.
putting them to the country at large; but

there in all ages perfidy could be had
for money, while there was interest to be
satisfied, or spite to be indulged.
I say, my lords, that there are in Italy,
as in every where else, most respectable
individuals. I have myself the happiness
of knowing many Italian gentlemen in
whose hands I should think my life or
honour as safe as in the hands of any of
your lordships. But I speak of those who
have not been brought here, when I so
pass my opinion of them. Those whohave
been brought over and produced at your
lordships bar, are of a far other descrip-
tion :-" Sunt in illo numero multi boni,
docti, pudentes, qui ad hoc judicium de-
ductinon sunt: multi impudentes, illiterati,
leaves; quos, variis de causes, video con-
citatos. Verum tamen hoc dico de toto
genere Greecorum; quibus jusjurandum
jocus est; testimonium ludus; existimatio
vestra tenebre ; laus, merces, gratia, gratu-
latio proposita est omnis in impudent men-
dacio." My lords, persons of this latter
description were to be gotten by various
means, which the carelessness of the one
party, which the wealth and power of the
supposed conspirators, placed within their
reach. Money, accordingly, has been
given, with a liberality unheard of in any
other case, even of conspiracy; and where
money would not operate, power has
been called in to its aid.
Having thus procured their agents-
having thus intrusted them-how were
they to be marshalled to compass the
common design ? Uniformity of agree-
ment is above all things necessary in con-
spiracy. Accordingly, they are taken,
one by one, and carefully examined
before one and the same person, assisted
by the same coadjutors and even by the
same clerks-they are moved in bodies
along the country, by even the same cou-
riers; and these couriers are not the ordi-
nary runners of the foreign office of the
country which shall be nameless, who
had some connexion with the spot, but
special messengers, whose attention is de-
voted peculiarly to this department.
Many of the persons intended to be used
themselves as witnesses, are employed as
messengers; which kept the different wit-
nesses in the due recollection of their les-
son, and had the effect of encouraging the
zeal of these witnesses, by giving them an
office, an interest, a concern in the plot
that is going on.
Observe, then, my lords, how the drill-
ing goes on. It is not done in a day-

Bill of Pains and Penalties [ 12
nor a week-hardly in a year: but it ex-
tends over a long space of time; it is go-
ing on for months and years. The Board
is sitting at Milan. There they sit at the
receipt of perjury; there they carry on
their operations-themselves ignorant, no
doubt, of its being perjury; but then, so
long as it continues, so much the more
likely is the gross perjury to take place.
The witnesses are paid for their evidence:
the tale is propagated by the person re-
ceiving the money carrying it to his own
neighbourhood; and he becomes the pa-
rent of a thousand tales, to be equally
paid as they deserve; for one is as false as
the other. You mark the care with which
it is treated-there is not a witness (I
mean an Italian witness) brought to this
country, without previously passing
through the Milan drill; because, if they
had not passed through that drill, there
would be a want of union and agreement.
So that even the mate of the polacre,
Paturzo, who was brought here to be ex-
amined on the morning after his arrival,
wasbrought through Milan, and passed his
examination before the same persons who
had taken the former examinations. Aye,
and the captain too, who was examined
by the Board, more than a year ago, is
carried by the way of Milan, to have a
conversation with his old friend there,
who, the year before, had examined him to
the same story. Here, then, by these
means recruited-with this skill mar-
shalled-with all this apparatus and pre-
paration made ready to come to the field
where they are to operate, you have the
witnesses safely landed in England; and
in order that they may be removed from
thence suddenly, all in a mass, they are
living together while here; then they are
carried over to Holland, and afterwards
returned here; and finally deposited, a day
or two before their well-earned services,
and well-earned money, I think, require
them to appear before your lordships.
They are kept together in masses-for-
merly they lived in separate rooms; it was
necessary not tobring them togetherbefore;
but those of feeble recollection it was ne-
cessary afterwards to keep together, for the
convenience of mutual communication.
There they were, communicating to each
other their experiences, animated by the
same feelings and hopes, founded on the
same motives to the same common cause.
But not only this;-according to the parts
of the story which they were to make out
before your lordships, they were put to-

133] against her Majesty.
gether. There are two Piedmontese:
they did not associate together in this
contubernium-for I know of no other
name by which to denote the place they
occupied-but one of them kept company
with the mate and captain of the polacre,
because he tells the same story with them-
selves. It is needless to add, that they
are here cooped up, in a state of confine-
ment-here they are, without communi-
cating with any body but themselves, ig-
norant of every thing that is going on
around them, and brought from that pri-
son by these means, in order to tell to
your lordships the story which, by such
means, has been got up among them.
My lords; I fear I may appear to have
undervalued the character of these Ita-
lians. Suffer me, then, to fortify myself
upon the subject, by saying, that I am
not the person who has formed such an
estimate of the lowest orders of that coun-
try. And perhaps it may be some assist-
ance to your lordships-possibly some
relief from the tedium of these comments
on the statements of the evidence in sup-
port of the bill, if I carry your lordships
back to a period of the history of this
country, and I shall take care not to do it
to any remote period, or to circumstances
very dissimilar from those which mark the
present day. Your lordships, I perceive,
anticipate me. I naturally go back to the
reign of Henry the 8th, and the proceed-
ings against Catharine of Arragon. And
I shall show your lordships in what way
we have a right to view Italian testimony,
though proceeding from sources calcu-
lated to establish impressions very differ-
ent from the statements of discarded ser-
vants. Your lordships will find in the re-
cords of that age, in Rymer's Collection,
some curious documents with respect to
the proceedings of Harry the 8th. The
great object, as your lordships know, was,
to procure and consult the opinions-the
free, unbiassed opinions-of the Italian jur-
ists, in favour of his divorce. Rymer
gives us the opinions of the professors and
doctors of several of the Italian univer-
sities; and from them your lordships will
see that, by a strange coincidence, these
Docti gave their free, unbiassed opi-
nions," in nearly the same words. I shall
select that of the most celebrated of the
whole, which is known by the appellation
of Bologna the Learned. The doctors
there say, one and all, that in compliance
with the request of the King, they each
separately, and unconnected with his fel-

OcT. 3, 1820.


lows, had examined the case;-they had
taken the care which your lordships
have taken on the present occasion-and
then, having well weighed the matter-
" Censemus, judicamus, dicimus constan-
tissime testamur, et indubie affirmamur"-
they say, that having sifted the question,
they are one and all of opinion, that
Harry the 8th has a right to divorce his
queen. But it seems that, from the great
similarity of the opinions of the doctors,
and of the language in which they were
expressed, there existed at that time
much the same suspicion of a previous
drilling, that there does appear to have
been in a certain other case which I shall
not now mention; and that to repel that
suspicion, pretty nearly the same precau-
tions were used as in this other case. In-
deed, by a singular coincidence, these
Doctissimi Doctores of the sixteenth cen-
tury, were directed to swear-which they
might do with a safe conscience-that they
had never opened their mouths to one an-
other on the subject-in the same manner
that the illiterati et impudentes of the pre-
sent proceeding swore, that they had ne-
ver talked to one another on the subject
of what each had to swear. The doctors
and divines of Italy swore, on the Holy
Gospel, that they never had, directly or
indirectly, communicated their sentence,
or any word or thing concerning the
same, by sign, word, deed, or hint, until a
certain day;"-which was the day they
all came to understand the matter.
Now, my lords, all this appeared, prima
facie, a very sound and specious case; as
every security had been taken to guard
against any captious objection; and, with
that character it would, probably, have
passed down to posterity, if there had
been no such thing as a good historian
and honest man, in the person of bishop
Burnet; and he, with his usual innocence,
being a great advocate of Harry the 8th,
in consequence of his exertions in support
of the Reformation, tells the tale in the
way which I am now going to state; still
leaning towards that king, but undoubt-
edly letting out a little that is rather
against himself. Harry first provided him-
self with an able agent; and it was neces-
sary that he should also be a learned one.
He took one, then, to whom my learned
friend, the solicitor-general's eulogium on
the head of the Milan commission, would
apply in some of the words ;-a man of
great probity, and singularly skilled in the
laws of his country. And, by a still more

135] HOUSE OF LORDS, Bill of Pains and Penalties [136
curious coincidence, the name of Harry's him, and we are furnished with the ori-
agent happened tobe Cooke. He went ginal tariff, by which the value of the
up and down," says Burnet, procuring opinions of these Italian doctors and
hands; and he told them he came to, that divines were estimated. Item, to a Ser-
he desired they would write their conclu- vite friar, when he subscribed, one crown;
sions, according to learning and con- to a Jew, one crown; to the doctor of the
science,"-[as I hope has been done at Servites, two crowns; to the observant
Milan]-" without any respect or favour, friars two crowns; Item, to the prior of
as they would answer it at the Last Day; St. John's and St. Paul's, who wrote for
and he protested,"-[just as I have heard the king's cause, fifteen crowns"-the
some other persons do]--' that he never author was better paid then than the ad-
gave nor promised any divine any thing, vocate; as often happens in better times
till he had first freely written his mind;" -" Item, given to John Maira, for his
and he says, that ," what he then gave, expense of going to Milan, and for re-
was rather an honourable present than a warding the doctors there, thirty crowns."
reward;"-as a compensation, not a re- There is a letter also from the bishop of
compence. These were the very words Worcester to Cooke, directing, that he
used in that country, at that time-as they should not promise rewards, except to
have been, recently, in this. them that lived by them, to the Canonists
Now, we have a letter from this agent who did not use to give their opinions
-as who knows two hundred years hence without a fee.' The others he might get
there may not be letters from Milan ?- cheaper-those he must open his hand to;
There is a letter of Cooke's to Henry the because, he says, the Canonists, the Civi-
eighth, dated the 1st of July, 1530, in lians, did not use to give an opinion with-
which he says, My fidelity bindeth me out a fee. Bishop Burnet, with the native
to advantage your highness, that all Lu- simplicity and honesty of his character,
therans be utterly against your highness sums up all this with remarking, that
in this cause, and have told as much, these Italian doctors must have had very
with their wretched power, malice with- prostituted consciences, when they could
out reason or authority, as they could be hired so cheap. It is true, that Cooke,
and might; but I doubt not," says he, in many of his letters, says, that if he had
" that all Christian Universities"-Chris- had money enough, he could get the
tian contradistinguished from Lutheran! hands of all the Divines in Italy; for he
-" that all Christian ministers, if they found the greatest part of them were
be well handled, will earnestly conclude mercenary."
with your highness. Albeit, gracious My lords; the descendants of those
lord"-now comes he to expound what Divines and Doctors, I am sorry to say,
lie means by the well-handling of the have rather improved than backslidden
Christian Universities-" albeit, gracious from the virtues of their ancestors; and,
lord, if that I had in time been sufficiently accordingly, I trust your lordships will
furnished with money; albeit, I have, permit me to bring the tale down to the
beside this seal, procured unto your high- present day, to connect the present pro-
ness 110 subscriptions; yet, it had been ceeding with the Divorce of Harry the
nothing, in comparison of that that I 8th's time. I trust your lordships will
might easily and would have done. And allow me to read to you the testimony,
herein I inclose a bill specifying by given in the year 1792, of a native of
whom and to whom I directed my said Italy, of distinguished family, who was
letters, in most humble wise beseeching employed in a diplomatic character, by an
your most royal clemency to ponder my august individual, who was near being the
true love and good endeavouring, and victim of an Italian conspiracy-he pub-
not suffer me to be destitute of money, to lished a letter, and it is evidence, I say,
my undoing, and the utter loss of your because it was published before the whole
most high causes here." Now this, my Italian nation in their own tongue, and it
lords, undoubtedly is the outward history states what Italian evidence is made of;
of this transaction; but we have only and he addressed it, with his name, to the
seen the accounts of Bishop Burnet and prime minister of the country, that mi-
of the agent Cooke. But, happily, the nister enjoying the highest civil and mili-
Italian agent employed by Henry the tary authority there, and being by descent
8th, one Peter it Ghinnuciis, the Vi- a subject of the British crown-I mean
lrereati of that day, left his papers behind general Acton. To the dishonour of

15 7J against her Majesty. OCT. 3, 1820. [138
human nature," says the writer, there his expressions are; consequently, he
is nothing at Naples so notorious as the felt the importance of this fact; he knew
free and public sale of false evidence. how damaging it would be to the Queen;
Their ordinary tariff is three or four he knew it was important to state this,
ducats, according to the necessities of and he felt determined not to be disap-
those who sell, and the occasions of those pointed when he had once and again
who buy it. If, then, you would support failed-he brought three witnesses; and
a suit, alter a will, or forge a hand-writ- if one would not swear the first time, he
ing, you have only to cast away remorse brought him again. Now, my lords, if I
and open your purse-the shop of perjury show the symptoms of mending and patch-
is ever open." It poured in upon him in ing in such a case, it operates as volumes
a full tide: he made his appeal in such against that case; and if your lordships
words as I have now read : he and his find it here, you may guess it is not want-
royal master, who was implicated in the ing elsewhere. But here it is most mani-
charge, were acquitted by such an appeal; festly to be seen. Your lordships plainly
and I now repeat it, when such evidence perceived what it was that these witnesses
is brought to support charges as atroci- were intended to say. You no sooner
ties, as ruinous, and far more incredible in heard the first question put-you no
themselves, than that an Italian should sooner heard the leading questions with
have suborned an agent to injure a fellow which the solicitor.general followed it,
creature, than you must have known it was ex-
My lords; I have been drawn aside pected, that an indecent act would be
from the observations I was making, ge- sworn to-that it would be sworn it was
nerally, of the manner in which this Case an exhibition of the most gross and inde-
has been prepared. Ipray your lordships cent description; and one part of the
to observe how these witnesses all act evidence I can hardly recount to your
after they come into court: and the first lordships. Now see, my lords, how the
thing that must strike an observer here, first witness swore-this is their first and
is the way in which they mend their evi- main witness, who is brought to prove
dence-how one improves upon the other their whole case-Majoochi. He will
after an interval of time-and how each only allow-and this is the first stage in
improves, when required, upon himself. I which this deity of theirs is brought be-
can only proceed, my lords, in dealing fore your lordships-he will only allow it
with this subject of conspiracy and false is a dance. Did you observe any thing
swearing, by sample: but I will take the else ?"-the usual answer, Non mi ri-
one that first strikes me; and I think it cordo ;" but if there was, I have not
will effectually illustrate my proposition, seen it," and "1 do not know." Was
Your lordships must remember themanner any thing done by Mahomet, upon that
in which my learned friend, the attorney- occasion, with any part of his dress?"
general, opened the case of Mahomet, the says the solicitor-general, evidently talk-
dancer. Again, I take his own words: "A ing from what he had seen written down:
' man of the most brutal and depraved -" He made use of the linen of his large
" habits, who at the Villa d'Este exhibited pantaloons."- How did he use his
Sthe greatest indecencies atvarioustimes, trowsers? Did he do any thing with the
" in the presence of her majesty and Ber- linen of his pantaloons or trowsers ?"
" gami-exhibitions which are too dis- His trowsers were always in the same
Gusting to be more than alluded to- state as usual."* Here, then, was a comn-
" the most indecent attempts to imitate plete failure-no shadow of proof of those
Sthe sexual intercourse.-This person mysteries which this witness was expected
" deserves not the name of a man"*- to divulge. This was when he was exa-
said the attorney-general. Now, my mined on the Tuesday. On the Friday,
lords, I take this instance, because it with the interval of two days-and your
shows the proposition that I was stating lordships, for reasons best known to your-
to your lordships, better than any other, selves, but which must have proceeded
perhaps. All show it, to a degree; but from justice guided by wisdom, which is
this,best of all; because I have shown your never more seen or evidenced than in
lordships how careful the attorney-general varying the course of conduct, and adapt-
is in opening the Case, and how strong ing to new circumstances the actions we

See Vol. 2, p. 797. See Vol. 2, p. 841.

wish to do-which will not, if it be per-
fect in its kind, and absolute in its degree,
suffer by the deviation; for that reason
alone, in order that injustice might not be
done (for what, in one case, may be in-
jurious to a defendant, may be expected
mainly to assist a defendant in another)
-Your lordships, not with a view to
injure the Queen-your lordships, with a
view to further the ends of justice, allowed
the Evidence to be printed, which atforded
to the witnesses if they wished it, means
to mend and improve upon their evi-
dence-Your lordships allowed this, solely
with the intention of gaining for the
Queen that unanimous verdict, which the
country has pronounced in her favour,
by looking at the Case against her-
your lordships, however, allowed all the
evidence against her to be published,
from day to day. Accordingly, about
two days intervened between Majoochi's
evidence, and the evidence of Birollo;
during which time, Birollo had access to
Majoochi's deposition, as well as to his
person; and it is no little assistance, if
we have not only access to the witness,
but to his testimony; because he may
forget what he has sworn, and it is some-
thing that he should see, as well as the
second and the mending witness, the
story he has told. Accordingly, with the
facility which this gave him, came for.
ward Birollo, after two days interval, he
improves upon the story; from a dance,
and from the usual handling, or ordinary
use of the trowsers, he made a rotula or
roll. The witness then begins to hint at
some indecency; but he does not men-
tion it. He starts and draws back. For
my part, I cannot tell what he meant;
and he really adds something which he,
in his own wicked imagination, might
think indecent, but he was forced to
admit he did not know what it meant.*
But, on the Wednesday following, a wit-
ness comes, and he finishes it altogether.
He improves even upon Birollo; and he
tells you, in plain downright terms, that
which I have a right to say is, because I
know I can prove it to be, false-which I
have a right to say, before proving it, was
false; because I know the same dance
was witnessed by wives and daughters, as
modest and pure as any of your lordships
have the happiness of possessing-by
wives and daughters of your lordships in
those countries.

See Vol. 2, p. 944.

Bill of Pains and Penalties

Now, another improvement and mend-
ing, suffer me, my lords, to advert to ; for
it runs through the whole case. I do not
even stop to offer any comment upon the
non mi ricordo of Majoochi; nor on the
extraordinary fact of that answer being
regularly dropped by the other witnesses,
as soon as the impression which the repe-
tition had made on the public mind was
fully understood; but I wish to call your
lordships attention to the more important
point of money. No sooner had Gar-
giulo the captain, and Paturzo the mate
of the polacre, proved that they were
brought here by sums so inadequate to
the service, by sums so infinitely beyond
even the most ample remuneration for
their work; that they were bribed by
sums such as Italians in their situation
never dreamed of-no sooner had this fact
dropped out, than one and all of them are
turned into disinterested witnesses, not
one of whom ever received a chilling by
way of compensation for what they did.
" Half-a-crown a day for the loss of my
time, my travelling expenses, and a few
stivers to feed my family!" The expect.
tion of his expenses being paid, began in
the instance of the cook, Birollo. He told
you, he had nothing at all but his trouble
for coming here. Do you expect no-
thing?" I hope to go soon home to
find my master." The cook at first was
offered and refused money. The others
had nothing offered-Demont nothing!-
Sacchi nothing!-though true, he, a
courier, turns out to be a man of large
property, and says, Thank God!
I have always been in easy circum-
stances" *-thank God! with a gratitude
truly edifying. A man who must have
a servant of his own-who had one in
England-who must live here at the ex-
pense of four or five hundred pounds a
year, which is equal to fourteen or fifteen
hundred in Italy, goes to be a courier, is
angry at being turned off, and is anxious
to return to that situation I believe the
captain and the mate. They avowed that
what they had was enormous payment;
and the other witnesses, hearing of the
effect of that confession, have, one and
all, denied having received any thing, and
would not confess that they had any future
The last of these general observations
with which I shall trouble your lordships,
and which I own I think your lordships

See Vol. 2, p. 1276.


against her Majesty.

must have been impatient I should come 1 racter-the very persons to have brought
to, is with regard to the great blanks forward, if he had dared bring them for-
among the witnesses for the prosecution- ward; and the very signal, and I had al-
I mean, the fewness of those witnesses, most said extravagant contrast to all the
compared with what their own testimony, witnesses, but two, whom my learned
and their own statement that introduced friend did venture to call to your lord-
it, show your lordships they ought to have ships' bar? why were they not produced
called. My lords, I conjure you to attend to your lordships ? why had not your lord-
to this circumstance, for it is a most im- ships-why had not we the benefit of
portant point in the whole of this case. I having the Case proved against us, in
say, that if I had not another argument to the manner in which any judge sitting at
urge, I should stand confidently upon this the Old Bailey, would command, upon
ground. If the case were as ordinary as pain of an acquittal, any prosecutor to
it is extravagant-if it were as probable as prove against any ordinary felon? Cer-
it is loaded in every feature with the tainly, they were in our employment;
grossest improbabilities-if it were in the they were in some way connected with
common course of human events, that such our interest; they received salaries from
occurrences as those which have been the Queen, and might be supposed to be
alleged should have happened, as it is the amicably disposed towards us. My lords,
very reverse-I should still stand confi- is there in all that, the shadow of a shade
dently and steadily upon that part of the of a reason why they should not have been
case to which I have now happily arrived, adduced ? I am not speaking, my lords,
I know, my lords, that it is bold-I know in a civil action. I am not dealing with
that it is bold even to rashness-to say so a plaintiff's case, in a suit upon a bill of
much of any point before I have begun exchange for twenty pounds. I am not
to hint at it; but I feel so perfectly, so even speaking in a case of misdemeanor,
intimately convinced, that in such a case or a case of felony, or the highest crime
as the present, the circumstance to which known in the law, between which and
I refer ought to be fatal to the bill before the act alleged against my illustrious
your lordships, that I consider myself as client it is difficult to draw simply a
even acting prudently, in declaring, by technical distinction. But I stand here on
anticipation, what I hold to be its cha- a bill of Pains and Penalties, which your
racter. lordships are not bound to pass; which
My lords; the attorney-general told us, you may give the go-by to; which you
that there were rumours at Naples, why are not bound to say aye, or no,
the Queen's ladies left her-it turned out, to. Your lordships 'are not sitting as
that instead of leaving her, one had joined commissioners to try a case of high treason.
her at Naples, one had joined her at Leg. Gracious God is this a case in which the
horn, and another at Genoa afterwards- prosecutor is to be allowed to bring for-
but my learned friend said, that one left ward half a case? Is this an occasion on
her, and one or two others staid behind, which the prosecutor is to be allowed to
and rumours were not wanting, that their say, These witnesses I will not call.
doing so was owing to the impropriety of True it is, they are the best. True it
her majesty's conduct. Rumours! My is, that they are respectable; and that
learned friend may say, that these were they are unimpeachable, no man can deny.
rumours which he was unable to prove. If they swear against the Queen, she is
But if they were rumours which had any utterly undone. But I will not call them.
foundation whatever-if they were such I will leave them for you to call. They
rumours as my learned friend had a right to are not my witnesses, but yours. You call
allude to (even if he had a right to them. They came from your vicinity.
refer to rumour at all, which I deny)- They are not tenants of Cotton-garden,
if there was a shadow of foundation for and therefore I dare not, I will not, pro-
those rumours, why did he not call the duce them; but when you call them, we
obvious witnesses toproveit? Where were shall see what they state, and if you
those ladies, women of high rank and do not call them*'-in the name of
elevated station in society, well-known in justice, what ? Say. For shame, in this
their own country, loved, esteemed, and temple, this highest temple of justice,
respected, as women upon whose cha- to have her most sacred rule so pro-
racter not a vestige of imputation has ever faned, that I am to be condemned in
rested-women of talents as well as cha- the plenitude of proof, if guilt is-that I

OCT. 3, ISOd. [142

143] HOUSE OF LORDS, Bill of Pains and Penalties [144
am to be condemned unless I run counter itself extends; in fact, only dismissed, or
to the presumption which rules in all rather retiring from the Queen's service,
courts of justice, that I am innocent until and refused to be taken back, about the
I am proved guilty; and that my case is time when the charge closed. He and
to be considered as utterly ruined, unless Demont stand aloof from the rest of the
I call my adversaries witnesses My lords, witnesses, and resemble each other in this
my lords, if you mean ever to show the particular, that they go through the whole
face of those symbols by which Justice is case. They are, indeed, the great wit-
known to your country, without making it nesses to prove it; they are the witnesses
stand an eternal condemnation of your- for the bill; the others being confirmatory
selves, I call upon you instantly to dis- only of them; but, as willing witnesses
miss this case and for this reason; and I are wont to do-as those who have re-
will say not another word upon the subject. ceived much and been promised more,
My lords, perhaps your lordships will they were zealous on behalf of their em-
allow me a short interval, as I am now players, and did not stop short of the two
coming upon another part of the Case. main witnesses, but they each carried the
[Having retired for three quarters case a great deal further. This is, ge-
Havng retired for three quarters o nerally, with a view to their relative im-
an hour, Mr. Brougham proceeded portance, the character of all the wit-
as follows:] nesses.
My lords; I have humbly to return my Now only let me entreat your lordships
thanks to your lordships, for the indul- attention, while I enter on this branch of
gence with which you have kindly favoured the subject, a little more in detail. I have
me. I have now to solicit the attention often heard it remarked, that the great
of your lordships, and I am afraid at prevailing feature of Majoochi's evidence
greater length than any thing could jus- -his want of recollection-signifies, in
tisfy but the unparalleled importance of truth, but little; because a man may for-
the occasion, to a consideration more in get-memories differ. I grant that they
detail of the Evidence by which this Case do. Memories differ, as well as honesty,
has been attempted to be supported. in man. I do not deny that. But Ithink
And, in point of time, as indeed of im- I shall succeed in showing your lordships,
portance, the first figure that was pre- that there is a sort of memory that is ut-
sented to your lordships in the group, terly inconsistent with any degree of
must naturally have arisen to your recol- honesty in any man, which I can figure to
election the moment I announced my in- myself. But why do I talk of fancy ? for
tention of going into any particular detail I have only to recollect Majoochi; and I
of the merit of the different witnesses- know cases, in which I defy the wit of
I mean Theodore Majoochi of happy me- man to conceive stronger or more palpa-
mory, who will be long known in this ble instances of false swearing, than may
country, and every where else, much after be conveyed to the hearers and to the
the manner in which ancient sages have court in the remarkable words Non mi
reached our day, whose names are lost in recordo-I do not remember." I will not
the celebrity of the little saying by which detain your lordships, by pointing out
each is now distinguished by mankind, cases, where the answer, I do not re-
and in which they were known to have member" would be innocent, where it
embodied the practical result of their own might be meritorious, where it might be
experience and wisdom; and, as long as confirmatory of his evidence, and a sup-
those words which he so often used in the port to his credit. Neither need I ad-
practice of that art and skill which he had duce cases where such an answer would
acquired by long experience and much be the reverse of this-where it would be
care-as long as those words shall be destructive to his credit, and the utter de-
known among men, the image of Majoo- molition of his testimony. I will not quote
chi, without naming him, will arise to any of those cases. I shall content myself
their remembrance. My lords, this person with taking the evidence of Majoochi as
is a witness of great importance; he was it stands: for if I had been lecturing on
the first called, and the latest examined; evidence, I should have said-as the in.
continuing by the case and accompanying nocent forgetfulness is familiar to every
it throughout. His evidence almost ex- man, so is the guilty forgetfulness; and
tended over the whole of the period in giving an instance, I should just have
through which the Case and the charge found it all in Majoochi's actualevidence.


against her Majesty.

Now, at once, to give your lordships
proof positive that this man is perjured-
proof I shall show to be positive, from his
mode of forgetting. In the first place, I
beg your lordships attention to the way
in which this witness swore hardily in
chief, eke as hardily in cross-examination,
to the position of the rooms of her Ma-
jesty and Bergami. The great object of
the attorney-general, as shown by his
opening, was that for which the previous
concoction of this plan by these witnesses
had prepared him; namely, to prove the
position of the Queen's and Bergami's
rooms always to have been favourable to
the commission of adultery, by showing
that they were near and had a mutual
communication; whereas, the rooms of all
the rest of the site were distant and cut
off; and the second part of that statement
was just as essential as the first, to make
it the foundation of the inference of guilt
which Tt was meant to support. Accord-
ingly, the first witness, who was to go over
their whole case, appears to have been
better prepared on this point, than any
ten that followed-more inferences-more
forgetfulness in detail-perfect recollec-
tion to attack the Queen-utter forgetful-
ness to protect himself from the sifting of
a cross-examination. Where did the
Queen and Bergami sleep?" Her majesty
slept in an apartment near thatof Bergami."
Were those apartments near, or re-
mote ?" for it was often so good a thing to
get them near and communicating with
each other, that it was pressed again and
again. Where were the rest of the
suite; were they distant or near ?" says
the solicitor-general. This was at Na-
ples; and this is a specimen of the rest
-for more was made of that proximity
at Naples than any where else-' Were
they near ordistant ?" They were apart."
The word in Italian was lontano, which
was interpreted apart." I remarked,
however, at the time, that it meant
distant;" and distant it meant, or it
meant nothing. Here, then, the witness
had sworn distinctly, from his positive
recollection, and had staked his credit on
the truth of a fact, and also of his recol-
lection of it-upon this fact, whether or
not the Queen's room was near Bergami's
with a communication ? But no less had
he put his credit upon this other branch
of his statement, essential to the first, in
order to make both combined the founda-
tion of a charge of criminal intercourse,
" that the rest of the suite were lodged

Oct.-3, 1820. [146
apart and distant." There is an end, then,
of innocent forgetfulness, if, when I come
to ask, where the rest slept, he either tells
me, I do not know," or I do not re-
collect;" because he had known and must
have recollected that when he presumed
to say to my learned friends, these two
rooms were alone near and connected, the
others were distant and apart-when he
said that, he affirmed his recollection of
the proximity of those rooms and the re-
moteness of the others. He swore that at
first, and afterwards said, I know not,"
or I recollect not," and perjured him-
self as plainly as if he had told your lord-
ships one day that he saw a person, and the
next said he never saw him in his life-the
one is not a more gross or diametrical con-
tradiction than the other. Trace him, my
lords, in his recollection and forgetful-
ness-observe where he remembers and
where he forgets-and you will find the
same conclusion following you every
where, and forcing the same conviction.
I will give one specimen fromthe evidence
itself, to show your lordships he has no
lack of memory when it is to suit his pur-
pose-when it is to prove a story where
he has learned his lesson and when he is
examined in chief-when, in short, he
knows who is dealing with him, and is only
anxious to carry on the attack-I will
show your lordships what his recollection
is made of. You shall have a fair sample
of his recollection here. I asked him-
The Lord Chancellor.-In what page of
the printed Minutes, Mr. Brougham?
Mr. Brougham.-In page 47, my lord.
The Earl of Liverpool suggested, that
the learned gentleman, when he quoted
from the printed Minutes of Evidence,
should specify the folio.
Mr. Brougham proceeded-I asked him,
" Have you ever seen the Villa d'Este
since the time you came back from the
long voyage ?" He had been examined in
chief upon this, and had stated distinctly,
with respect to the Villa d'Este, the state
of the rooms, and I wanted to show the
accuracy of his recollection on those parts
where he was well drilled-" Have you
ever seen the Villa d'Este since the time
you came back from the long voyage?"
" I have."-" Was the position of the
rooms the same as it had been before with
respect to the Qaeen and Bergami ?"
" They were not in the same situation as
before."-Then the witness gives a very
minute particular of the alterations-a
small corridor was on one side of the prin-


cess' room on her return. Was there
a sitting room on the other side of it,
not opposite, but on one of the other skies
of it ?" Now attend, my lords, to the par-
ticularity--" There was small corridor, on
tile left of which, there was a door that
led into the room of the princess, which
was only locked; and then going a little
further on in the corridor, there was on
the left hand a small room, and opposite
to this small room there was another door
which led into the room where they supped
in the evening"--" There was this sup-
ping-room on the right, there was a door
which led into Bergami's room, and on
the same right hand of the same room
there was a small alcove, where there was
the bed of Bartolomeo Bergami."-"- How
many doors were there in the small sitting-
room where they supped'?"-" I saw two
doors open always, but there was a third
stopped by a picture."-" Where did her
royal highness's maid sleep?" On the
other side, in another apartment."*-
Now, my lords, can any recollection be
more minute, more accurate, more perfect.
in every respect, than Majoochi's recol-
lection is of all these minute details, which
he thinks it subservient to his purpose to
give distinctly, be they true or be they
not-I do not deny them-my case is,
that much of what is true is brought
forward; but they graft falsehood on
it. If an individual were to invent
a story entirely; if he were to form
it completely of falsehoods, the result
would be his inevitable detection; but if
he build a structure of falsehood on the
foundation of a little truth, he may raise
a tale which, with a good deal of drilling,
may put an honest man's life, or an illus-
trious princess's reputation, in jeopardy.
If the whole edifice, from top to bottom,
should be built on fiction, it was sure to
fall; but if it was built on a mixture of
facts, it might put any honest man's life
or reputation in jeopardy. Now, I only
wish your lordships to contrast this ac-
curacy of recollection, upon this subject
and upon many other points-a few of
which I shall give you specimens of-with
his not having the slightest recollection of
a whole new wing having been added to
the princess's villa. He recollects the
slightest alteration of a bed-room or a
door; but he has not the slightest recol-
lection of the throwing up a new wing to
that house. This memory of his at least

See Vol. 2, p. 849.

is a capricious memory. But I will show
your lordships that it is a dishonest one
also. Of the same nature is his evidence
when any calculation of time is required.
He observes the most trifling distinction
of time when it suits his purpose ; and he
recollects nothing of time when it is in-
convenient for his object, In proof of
this, I request your lordships to refer
again to the celebrated scene at Naples.
There this witness remembers down to
minutes, the exact time her majesty
passes, upon two occasions, into Bergami's
room-upon the first occasion, she remains
there from ten to fifteen minutes; on the
second, from fifteen to eighteen minutes:
that is to say, taking the medium, sixteen
and ahalf minutes, true time. Upon an-
other occasion, lie tells you an affair last-
ed a quarter of an hour. Upon another
occasion he fired a gun, and then alto-
gether fifteen minutes elapse-a quarter
of an hour there. He is equally accurate
about three quarters of an hour in another
instance; that is, at Genoa, which I have
spoken of before. The other instance
was on the voyage. All this was in an-
swer to my learned friend; all this was in
the examination in chief; all this was
thought by the witness essential to his
story-all this garnishes the detail of
which the story is made up, and gives it
that appearance of accuracy which was
essential to the witness's purpose. But
when I come to ask him the time, and
when the answer would be of use to the
Queen-when it was of use, not to the
prosecution, but to the defence-see how
totally he is lost! then he does not know
whether they travelled all night, whether
they travelled for four hours or eight
hours. In answer to a question upon that
subject, he says, I had no watch, I do
not know the length of time." No watch !
possibly. And did not know the length
of time! very likely. But had you a
watch when you saw the Queen go into
the room of Bergami? Did you acci-
dentally know the time when it suited
your purpose to know it to a minute?
Why know the precise time so accurately
on one occasion, and be so totally ignorant
of iton another ?)He pleaded the want of
a watch only when it would have suited
the purpose of the defence and brought
out the truth; or, what comes to the
same thing, have convicted himself. With
respect to the category of numbers, he
cannot tell whether there were two or
two and twenty sailors aboard the polacre.

Bill of Pains and Penalties



against her Majesty.

He cannot tell with respect to place, that
other category of his deposition. Although
he slept in the hold, he does not know
where the others slept-he cannot tell
where they were at night or by day-he
knows they were on deck in the day, but
he cannot say where they were at night.
In short, I ask your lordships, whether a
witness with a more convenient memory
ever appeared in a court of justice?
But this is not all, my lords. There is
much in the evidence of this man, in
which the answer, I do not recollect,"
or, I do not know," cannot, by possi-
bility, be true, if the answers given in
the examination in chief be true: as, in
the first instance which I gave you at
Naples; if the minuteness sworn to in his
examination in chief was true, and found-
ed in fact, it is impossible that he should
have no recollection of the matters to
which he was cross-examined. If it was
true, that the rooms and doors were as he
described them, he could not, by possi-
bility, know and recollect that fact, and
be in total ignorance of the other parts of
the house. In the same manner, when
I examine him respecting Mr. Hughes, a
banker's clerk at Bristol, he knows no-
thing of the name, nothing of his being
a banker's clerk, never knew a banker's
clerk, has no recollection of him. But
when he sees that I have got hold of a
letter of his which he knew nothing about
at that time, which lie perhaps forgot
having committed himself by-the mo-
ment he sees that, and before I ask him a
single word to refresh his memory, you
plainly see by his demeanor and the tone
of his answer, that lie had never forgotten
Mr. Hughes, and that he never had for-
gotten that he was a banker's clerk.
" Oh !" lie says, I was in the habit of
calling him brother, it was a joke on ac-
count of the familiarity in which we were."
Thus it appears, that the familiarity makes
him forget a man of that kind, although
he says that familiarity was the ground
of his calling him familiarly and habitually
" brother." It was manifest, that Ma-
joochi was not very well pleased to re-
collect all that passed in that family, he
being a married man, and having made a
proposal of marriage to a female there,
which he attempted to laugh off-with
what success, I will leave your lordships
to judge. He was not willing to recollect
the name, or trade, or connection with
that family, until he knew that all was.

OCT. 3, 1820. [150
But, my lords, before we have done
with Majoochi, we have other instances
of that extraordinary instrument, as it
has been called, I mean, memory: we
have other instances of its caprices.
Your lordships recollect the shuffling,
prevaricating answers he gave respecting
the receipt of money. He first said, he
had received money from lord Stewart to
carry him to Milan. He afterwards, twice
over, swears lie never received money at
Vienna from any person-then comes the
answer, which 1 can only give in his own
words; for none other will give an ade-
quate idea of his style. He says, I re-
member to have received no money wlien
I arrived at Milan; I remember I did not:
* non so;' I do not know : pi6 no;' more
no than yes: non mi ricordo;' I do not
Now, my lords, I have a little guess
what sort of an evidence this Majoochi
gave when he was laying the foundations
of that favour which lie has since unin-
terruptedly enjoyed in the counsels of our
adversaries. I mean, the attorney and
solicitor-general. When he was laying
these foundations, deep and wide, upon
which his fortune was to be built, your
lordships will perceive, that he recollected
a great deal which lie is now ignorant of.
In the opening speech of my learned
friend much was stated which this witness
was expected to prove, and of which I
have before given your lordships an in-
stance or two, and which I will not repeat,
further than to remind your lnrdships, that
Majoochi was to have proved the kissing
in the room between that of the princess
and Bergami at Naples. On the contrary,
the witness negatives it in the completes
manner, by his saying it was only
Whisperingg" and not kissing. This
single instance shows the whole character
of this man's testimony; but I will remind
your lordships of one or two others, not
so striking from the nature of them, but
just as fatal to the credit of the witness;
because they all show, that he had told
one story to the instructors of my learned
friends, from which they put their ques-
tions, and another to your lordships.
When questioned here as to those points,
he was staggered for some reason; pro-
bably from knowing the facts and docu-
ments which I had got in my possession,
but more probably from having forgotten
part of his story. This is just one of

See Vol. 2, p. 873.

the means by which to detect a contrived
plot. This partial forgetfulness is much
more likely to take place, where the
whole is an invention, than where there
is truth at the foundation of the
testimony. So it is in this case. Majoochi
recollects part of his testimony. Yes,"
is ready for the question: but parts of it
he did not recollect. For it is perfectly
evident, that what a person has actually
seen is more intensely and firmly impress-
ed on his mind and recollection, than
what he has invented and imagined. I
am referring, my lords, to the solicitor-
general's examination of Majoochi. He
is asked, Did you bring Bergami any
broth ?" Often." He then states, that
he was ordered to sleep in a cabinet ad-
joining Bergami's room, and that when
there, pretending to be asleep, the prin-
cess passed through to the room of Ber-
gami, and then he is asked, After the
princess had entered the bed-room of
Bergami, did you hear any conversation?"
-that would have been enough; it is not
a leading question, but it would have been
enough to make the witness recollect; but
conversation was not what my learned
friend was after-" Did you hear any
conversation, or any thing else." That
was a hint. The man had said something
before, which had been taken down, and
was in my learned friend's hand. Now,.
there was something there which he had
said before, and my learned friend wanted
to get that out here. If it had been true,
why should not he recollect it? But he
forgot it. He forgot part of his own in-
vention; a situation to which a certain
class of men, that I shall not now men-
tion, are often exposed. So my learned
friend, skilfully enough, said, Did you
hear any conversation, or any thing else,
pass between them ?" Only some
whispers." Now, do your lordships want
to know whether my learned friend meant
whispering ? I say, No. I say, I read as
much as if I saw the printed paper which
was in his hand. My learned friend, the
attorney-general, had opened very differ-
ently; but, besides, from the examination
of the solicitor-general, it is evident, that
more than whispering was expected. If
Majoochi had never before said, that
something more than whispering had
passed between the parties, my learned
friend would have been satisfied. But
he proceeds to ask him, Do you re-
collect having heard or observed any
thing when the princess was in Bergami's

Bill of Pains and Penalties [152
room the second time ?" Whispering
conversation,"* says he again.-An-
other instance of the same sort occurs,
and I hope it will not be thought too
minute to go into it; for it is only in
this way that conspiracies are detected.
My lords, there was a story told about
the princess riding on an ass. At
Genoa, you saw her royal highness riding
upon an ass?" Yes." There was a
great deal more in his former statement
than he dared say now. Did you,
upon these occasions, make any observa-
tions as to any thing that passed be-
tween the princess and Bergami ?"
" Yes."-My learned friend thought he
was quite secure there. It is not a thing
that happens every day to see a prin-
cess of Wales riding about on an ass.
" State what passed at the time she was
riding on an ass ?" He took her round
her waist to put her upon the ass." My
learned friend thought he was safe landed.
" What else ?" He held her "-Aye,
that will do very well-a great deal may
be done with the word holding "-a
great deal depends on the tenure-" He
held her hand lest her royal highness
should fall." Aye, that won't do. My
learned friend is not satisfied with that.
Indeed, he must have been satisfied easily,
if that had contented him. But, having
something in his hand which the witness
had sworn to before, and convinced it
must be brought to his recollection again
-not knowing he was trying to do a
very difficult thing, namely, to make a
false swearer recollect his fiction, but
trying, as he thought, to make a true
man recollect what he had actually seen
-my learned friend proceeded-" Did
you make any other observation ?" I
have made no other observation-they
spoke; they discoursed."t And there
are a number of anecdotes of the same
sort--the breakfast at the Benedictine
Convent, and other things, which were
equally inventions-with this difference,
that, as always happens to men engaged
in such a vile concern, they forget parts
that are just as specific and clear as
the parts they recollect; and which, if
they had been true, they would have re-
collected just as well.
I might remind your lordships, upon
this head of Majoochi's evidence, of the
incredible nature of his story respecting

See Vol. 2, p. 808.
See Vol. 2, p. 810.

153] against her Majesty.
what took place at Naples. He would
have you to believe, my lords, having
free access to the bed-room of Bergami,
through other rooms, in which po persons
slept-which access, he was compelled,
after repeated prevarications, much equi-
vocal swearing, and several positive de-
nials, at length to admit, after a very
pressing examination having admitted
that there was this secret, easy, safe
access to that place of guilt, the bed-room
of Bergami, he states, that she preferred
the other way, where she knew Majoochi
slept, where she saw that he slept in a
bed without curtains, in a room so small,
that she could not go through without
almost touching that bed-in a room in
which there was a fire to give light.
But, what is the most monstrous thing
of all, he tells you, that her majesty, in
order to make her detection inevitable,
as she passed through the room, went
to the bed and looked him in the face,
to ascertain whether he was asleep Now,
my lords, this whole story defeats itself,
and discredits the teller. You cannot be-
lieve it; it carries its own refutation along
with it. What! my lords, are you to
suppose that her majesty voluntarily passed
through a room where she must have been
seen if the person was awake, when she
knew she might have gone another way,
where she would not have been seen?
She knew, my lords, that Majoochi slept
in that room-she knew the disposition
of his bed-she knew that there was a
fire kept in the room;-knowing all this,
she voluntarily passes through it, stopping
in her way to look the witness straight in
the face! My lords, I say, that this is a
plain invention-an invention natural
enough to come into the head of a person
who lives in a country where nightly
robberies are committed. I will not say
that this witness is a person who had known
more nearly that offence, and the precau-
tions taken by those who commit it; but
he, at least, was surrounded by adepts in
the art, and we generally find in stories
of robbers, that identical particular in-
serted-the robber comes to the bed of
the lady (and if there is a lady concerned,
so much the better) and looks with a
candle near her face, to ascertain whether
she is asleep. If she is asleep, it is all well
contrived; but if she is awake, and might
give the alarm, he does not care about
the alarm, and coolly retires. It is very
wise and prudent in the robber to take
this precaution. But, for a person who is

OCT. 3, 1820.


going to commit adultery in the next
room, whose face is as well known to the
man in bed as any face that can be men-
tioned, to go up to his bed-side with a
candle, in order to discover whether he is
asleep or not, is a proceeding altogether
incredible. What, my lords, would not
the simple fact of her majesty having been
seen in that room, under such circum-
stances, have exposed her? Would not
the fact of being detected in looking in
the face of Majoochi, have of itself, con-
demned her? The tale is most monstrous
and incredible. But it is providentially
and most happily ordained, for the detec-
tion of guilt, and the justification of inno-
cence, that such inventions are often care-
lessly put together; and, in this instance,
in particular, there has been but little
caution used in putting the materials to-
gether ; and this part has been peculiarly
thoughtlessly cast.
Now, my lords, I wish, before I dismiss
my observations on these stories, I might
recall to your lordships attention what
this witness has said on another point. He
told you, that Bergami began to dine at
the table of the princess at Genoa; when
it is notorious that he did not begin to
dine with her until some months after-
wards. I might recall to your lordships
attention that, in speaking of the night-
scene at Genoa, he does not recollect
Vinescati, the courier, arriving: even he
says, as the thing is much mixed up with
fiction, he had forgotten that, and he did
not remember his arrival at all-" Do you
remember at any time of the night knock-
ing at the door of Bergami's bed-room,
and endeavouring to wake him '" I do
remember."-" Upon what occasion was
that ? for what purpose ?" "It was in the
night when Vinescati came, and I went to
knock." Then, recollecting the contra-
diction, he said, it was not the night
Vinescati arrived, but the night thieves
got into the house, and then he drops the
courier altogether.
But, my lords, I come to what hap-
pened late in the day. Your lordships
recollect the account this witness gave of
his leaving the service of her majesty-an
account which contains as much gross and
deliberate falsehood as ever polluted the
walls of a court of justice; and allow me
here, my lords, to observe, that where you
see one material part of a person's evi-
dence grossly and palpably false, it dis-
penses with the necessity of going more
into detail-it is not necessary to prove

him a perjurer throughout-the whole of
his evidence must be discredited-nothing
that falls from the lips of a perjured man
ought to be entertained. My lords, in
giving you an account of his leaving the
service of the princess, the witness thought
necessary, in order to raise his character,
I suppose, to flourish about the cause of
his quitting her service. He denied that
he had been dismissed by her royal high-
ness. He said that he left the service, be-
cause he did not like the bad people by
whom she was surrounded. This he said,
for the double purpose of raising his own
credit, and debasing the Queen's and the
society by which she was surrounded.
But, my lords, this story is false; and I
will show the falsehood from his own
mouth. When a question was put to
him, Did you not apply to be taken
back ?" what was his answer- I do
not recollect." Here, my lords, you see
how he defends and protects himself; for
if he had answered, No, he knew we
might have called a witness who would
have convicted him at once. He was
then asked, Did you ever apply to Schia-
vini to make interest for your being taken
back ?" He answers, Once I did."
Now a man might have recollected that,
after being told, and might innocently
have forgotten in answer to the first ques-
t'on; but then he would not have imme-
d ately recollected all the circumstances;
for, the moment that string was touched,
his recollection was entire, his forgetful-
ness quitted him, and he told us the whole
history of the matter; and a very material
thing it is for your lordships to attend to.
He says, Yes, yes"-Si, si, was his ex-
pression; but it was in a sort of joke, just
as a person applies I made the applica..
tion in joke." That may be so; but if he
did not make it in joke, he has perjured
himself; if he did make this applica-
tion in joke, to what follows, he must
have answered, No. Did you or did
you not make repeated applications to
Hieronimus also to be taken back into her
royal highness's service ?" This could not
be all a joke; you could not have joked
with several persons on the same string.
" Non mi recordo"-" this I do not re-
member." Now, I say, my lords, that
either this last Non mi record" is gross
and wilful perjury, or the first story is
gross and wilful perjury, that he left the
Queen from his horrors of the bad people
by whom she was surrounded, or that he
made his application to Schiavini in pure

Bill of Pains and Penties [ 156
joke. There is no way out of this
dilemma. The two stories are utterly
inconsistent. But your lordships recol-
lect the way in which he told you that he
never wished to go back to his service. It
was done with some flourish and figure.
He said, with some indignation, Rather
than go to serve her royal highness, on
account of the persons that are about her,
1 will go and eat grass." I ask your
lordships, is that the saying of a true or a
false man, when he pretends that he would
rather eat grass than go back to a house,
where he made one application which he
pretends to have been a joke, and after-
wards will not swear he did not make
several applications to get back to the
same bad house? My lords, here, 1 say,
is developed the mystery of Majoochi
and his non mi record. My lords, this
was his protection and his shelter. My
lords, I say that rank falsehood appears on
the face of this part of the evidence, take
it one way or the other; and I care not
which of the two branches of the alterna-
tive is taken.
My lords; I now wish to call the atten-
tion of your lordships, for a moment, to
the next witnesses; but it shall only be for
a moment; because I have already anti-
cipated, in part, what I had to say of
them-I mean those well-paid swearers,
the captain and the mate of the polacre.
Now first, as to the mate, there is some-
thing in the demeanor of a witness more
consonant to a candid and a true story,
than the pertness with which that person
answered several questions; and all those
who have been accustomed to see wit-
nesses in a court of justice know, that
those who are stating falsehoods are ex-
tremely apt to give flippant and imperti-
nent answers. The mate of the polacre is
precisely a witness of this kind. Upon
being asked, Was the little gun you
spoke of upon the deck ?" he answers,
On the deck, we could not carry it in
our pocket." I only mention this, because
my learned friend, the solicitor-general
has said, that he is a witness of great
credit. Again, when asked, How did
you travel from Naples to Milan "' he an-
swers, In a carriage ; I could not go on
foot." I only do this to remind your lord-
ships of the manner of the witness, which
I should not do, if he had not been said to
be a witness ofthemost perfectlycorrectde-
meanor on the present occasion.-But I pro-

* See Vol. 2, pp. 859, 888.


157] against her Majesty.
ceed to thesubstance of hisevidence-I will
venture to say, that a better paid witness
-a better paid Italian-for any work or
labour, has never yet come to our know-
ledge. He is paid at the rate of 2,0001.
sterling a year-he was the mate in that
voyage of a trading vessel in the Me-
diterranean-he is now the fourth part
owner of a vessel, upon his own account.
So that to give him a sum in propor-
tion to what he makes when at home-
to make it a compensation instead of a
reward-that vessel must earn 8,0001. a
year; which is somewhat above an in-
come of from sixteen to eighteen thou-
sand pounds in this country. There is
not a ship-owner in all Messina, that
makes half the money by all the ships
he has of his own proper goods and chat-
tels. In that country, a man of two or
three or four hundred pounds a year is a
rich man. Fifteen hundred pounds a
year is a property possessed by none, ex-
cept the great noblesse. Clear profits of
80001. a year there !-their names would
resound over all Italy as the rich of the
earth; and not a man of consequence
would have gone from this country to
that, who would not have tried to pro-
cure letters of recommendation to them.
The Cobbler has lived in history, but in
his time he was not so well known, as
these two paltry shippers would be, if, in-
stead of dealing out the instrument he did,
these men kept their palaces and spent
their four thousand a year. And this is
his story; and if he does not mean so
much as this, so much the better in an-
other way.
My lords; the Captain of the vessel, as
might be expected, is paid in a much
higher way than the mate. He is paid
2,4.001. a year: he is fed, lodged, and
maintained: every expense is paid, and
this put into his pocket, and not for the
loss of any profits. I have hitherto been
considering it as a compensation for the
loss of his profits. But his ship is not
here; to use the mate's own mode of
speech, he did not bring it here in his
pocket; though the owner comes to Eng-
land, the ship is employed in the Medi-
terranean; and he is paid this-though
he attempts to deny it-he is paid this as
a recompense and not as a compensation.
My lords, the same arguments apply to
the Captain, in a greater degree, and I
shall not go through them. But, it ap-
pears there was a cause of quarrel between
the captain and the princess of Wales.

OCT. 3, 1820. [158
He tells you, with some naivete, that what
he had for himself, his mate, and the other
twenty men of his crew, and for all his
trouble, was a sum considerably less,
about a fourth part less, than he receives
now, for coming over to swear in this bu-
siness against his antient freighter. But
your lordships recollect what he added to
that. He says, When we take on board
royal personages, we trust more to the
uncertain than to the certain profits."
This is a great truth, well known to many
present, that something certain is often
stipulated for, but that something more is
often given by way of honorary and volun-
tary compensation. Then, my lords, I
only stop here for one moment, to re-
mind your lordships, that according to
this, his expectation is not limited to what
he gets, namely, 2,4001. a year, for com-
ing here to swear against the Queen-
but he says, he has been employed by
a royal person; and he tells your lord-
ships, that the ascertained compensation
bore no proportion to the voluntary re-
ward which he expected from her ma-
jesty-how much less, then, has he a right
to limit the bounty of her illustrious
husband, or of the servants of his majesty,
who had brought him here-if he serves
them faithfully-if the case in his hands
comes right through, and no accident
happens! If he should succeed in all this,
he would then get what would make a
mere joke of the 2,4001. a year; though
that would be infinitely greater than any
shipper ever earned by the employment
of his vessel in the Mediterranean Seas.
But, my lords, independent of the hope
of reward, there is another inducement
operating on the mind of this witnessfrom
another quarter. Is there no spite to
gratify ? The whole of his testimony,
my lords, is bottomed on revenge. I
have a right to say this, because he has
told me so himself. He has distinctly
sworn, that he had a quarrel with Ber-
gami, the Queen's chamberlain, whose
business it was to pay him the money;
and that he complained to his own am-
bassador, that Bergami had kept back
from him 1,3001. which he claimed. What
happened then ? I have made some
application, some demand. When I came
here last year, I gave a memorial to my
ambassador, count de Ludolph, and I
stated, that as I believed myself to have
served the British government, because I
had had the honour of bearing the English
flag, I expected the present which I had

not received ; and on account of this me-
morial which I gave to count de Ludolph,
the English government have known me
to be Vincenzo Gargiulo of Naples."*
Now, I mention it as a circumstance
which may strike different minds in dif-
ferent ways, but as not immaterial in
any view of this case, that the only
knowledge the prosecutor of this case has
of this witness is, that he made a com-
plaint against the Queen and her cham-
berlain, for not having paid him 1,3001.
that he said, they owed him ; and he
adds, that he was advised to go to
London to see after that sum of money.
I warrant you, my lords, he does not
think he is less likely to'see his way clear-
ly in the pursuit of his claim, in conse-
quence of the evidence which he has
given at your lordships bar.
My lords; there are other matters in
the evidence of these two men which de-
serve the attention of your lordships. I
think, my lords, that a princess of Wales,
on board a vessel, sitting upon a gun,
with her arms intertwined with those of
her menial servant, and sometimes kissing
that servant, is a circumstance not of such
ordinary occurrence in theMediterranean,
as to make it likely, that the captain or
mate would forget the most important
particulars of it. Yet they do forget, or
at least they differ-for I will not allow
they forget-they differ most materially
in their history of this matter. The
mate says, that the Queen and Bergami
were sitting on a gun, and that they were
supportingeach other. In the same page,t
he says afterwards, they were sitting near
the main-mast, the princess sitting on Ber-
gami's lap. Now, the difference between
sitting on a gun and near the main-mast
may strike your lordships as not import-
ant. I state it, because the mate consi-
ders it of importance-therefore, I con-
ceive he has some motives for it; he
means to say, I place my accuracy on
these details, which I give at my peril.
Accordingly he says, that when he saw
the Queen on Bergami's knees, it was not
on a gun, but on a bench near the main-
mast; and not one word about kissing
do I see in the mate's evidence. He for-
gets the most important part of the
whole. For which reason, your lord-
ships will conclude with me, I,think, that
he does not confirm the captain. The

See Vol. 2, p. 930.
t See Vol. 2, p. 895.

Bill of Pains and Penalties

[ 60

captain swears differently. He says,
S" I have seen Bergami sitting on a gun,
and the princess sitting on his knees, and
that they were kissing."* But do they
speak of the same thing ? Yes, if they
are to be believed at all ; for the cap-
tain says immediately after, that the mate
saw it as well as himself. The mate,
however, never says he saw it; and my
learned friends did not dare to ask him if
he had ever seen it. The captain says,
they saw it together ; yet when the men
are brought to give their evidence-and
they are brought immediately one after
the other-you see the consequence.
They totally differ in their account of
the story, and differ in a way clearly to
show, that that story cannot be true. Now,
what think you, my lords, of this man's
desiring you to believe-of his expect-
ing you to believe-that he was a man of
that strictness of conduct, and his mate so
pure a youth, educated in that primitive,
ante-diluvian Garden of Eden, Naples,
and Messina ;-that, when he saw a lady
go near a man, not touching, observe,
but leaning over the place where he was
reclined-nothing indecorous, nothing im-
proper, nothing even light-but only
leaning towards the place where he was re-
clining-he immediately desired his mate
to go away, because, besides being his
mate, and therefore under his especial
care in point of morals, by the relation of
master and mate-he was also his distant
relation, and therefore, by the ties of blood
also, he had upon his conscience a respon-
sibility for the purity of the sights which
should pass before that mate's eyes, and
therefore he could not allow him to re-
main for a moment near that part of the
ship, where these two were, because they
appeared to be approaching towards each
other Perhaps there may be those who
believe all this-who think it a likely ac-
count of the matter. Observe, my lords,
he never says, that the Queen ordered
them to go away-that any order to that
effect came from Bergami. No. The
guilty pair never interfered-they were
anxious that all the crew should see them
-but the virtuous Gargiulo, reviving in
the modern Mediterranean a system of
morals far more pure than ever antient
Ocean saw, would not suffer his mate to
see that which might happen, when two
persons, male and female, did not touch,
but were only near each other. My

See Vol. 2, p. 920.

461) against her Majesty.
lords; there may be those who believe
all this-I cannot answer for men's belief
-but this I am sure, that if they do not
believe it, they mustbelieve another thing;
namely, that Gargiulo the captain, and
the mate Paturzo speak that which is not
true. There is no way out of this con-
clusion. Either youl must believe that
the captain speaks the truth, when he
gives this account of his motives, or
you must believe that it is false, and that
it is gratuitously false. But not gratui-
tous, as it respects his own character.
He means to set himself up by it; to
earn his money the better, and, if pos-
sible, to take in some credulous minds by
it. Perhaps he may have succeeded-
the event will show-in making greater
that uncertain gain, the rate of which a
man, when dealing with royalty, always
increases, and in improving his chance of
attaining the 1,3001. for which he has come
over to this country.
My lords ; one more statement of these
men, and I have done with them. See,
my lords, how well drilled they are I
hold them up as models for those who may
practise that art. I hold them upas high.
ly finished specimens of it in its per-
fection. And no wonder. They are well
drilled-they are the best paid-and
therefore they ought to be the crack spe-
cimens of that art. Much money had
been laid out upon them, and their zeal
has been in proportion to the much they
have received, and the more they ex-
pect. See, my lords, how well they have
been trained But, happily, there are
limits to this art, as there are to all hu-
man inventions. If there were not, God
pity those who are attacked-God pity
the innocent against whom this mighty
art may be directed They cannot per-
fectly get over the disadvantage of not
having access to hear the evidence of
each other ; but see, when art can do
it, how well it is done. The master
and the mate are evidently descendants,
lineal descendants, of the doctors of
Bologna. Whether their names are the
same or similar, like those of Harry the
8th's agent, I know not. I have not be-
fore me the hundred and ten names;
but that they are their lineal descendants,
no man can doubt. They are afraid to
have it thought, for an instant, that they
ever spoke to one another upon the sub-
ject of their evidence. Intimate in all
other respects-living together in the
Magazine of Evidence in this neighbour-

OCT. 3, 1820.


hood-sleeping in the same room, supping
together, breakfasting together the very
morning before they came here, again
together the day after the first had
been examined, and when the second was
to come-the only subject on which they
never talked, in all the intimacy of master
and mate and blood and connexion, and
entertaining an affection for each other
that would do honour to the nearest con-
nexion, and which I wish some of the near-
est connexions had-the only subject, I
say, upon which they never chose to en-
ter, is the subject of the inquiry which
now occupies all other men !
My lords; this is not peculiar to
these two witnesses, but the way in
which they tell it is peculiar ; and is not
marked, on the part of the gallant cap-
tain, by the judgment and skill which
usually distinguishes him. I am not a
person," says he with indignation, to
state what I am obliged to say in this
room-the subject is of such a nature that
it cannot be talked of." What subject --
there is nothing so frightful in this subject
which you came to support, and which
you have witnessed. No, no: but it
would not be decent, it would not be cre-
ditable that I should tell to others all those
things which we say in this House, before
these gentlemen, these lords." Did
you ever say any thing to the mate
upon it ?" Oh, never, never !" Did
you tell Paturzo last night, or this morn-
ing, that it would not be fit for you and
Paturzo to talk about his examination of
Yesterday ?" Yes, upon this matter."*
My lords; this brings me to say a word
or two relative to a circumstance in the
character of all these recruits of the Cotton
Garden D6p6t. I must say, I think, that
whatever injury this inquiry may do to the
highest and most illustrious persons-
however pregnant it be with every thing
offensive to morals and to good taste-
whatever mischiefs to the conduct of so-
cial life may arise, for some time to come,
in consequence of the disgusting details
brought forth in the course of this ill-
omened proceeding, it must be matter of
comfort, that there is one spot on the face
of the island, one little land of Goshen,
sacred from the squabbles which surround
it, and that in this retired and pure so-
ciety, those subjects which offend the de-
licate, which alarm the apprehensions of
morality, and which go so well nigh to

See Vol. 2, p. 926,

contaminate the morals of all classes of
the community elsewhere, never, by any
mischance, reach; and, strange to tell, my
lords, that one little spot is neither more
nor less than Cotton Garden,in the vicinity
of this House! Let no man, then, sup-
pose, that the danger is so great as it has
been represented; or that there is any ac-
curacy in the statement, or that there is
any ground for the alarm founded upon
it, that the whole island is flooded with
theindecenciesand impurities whichissued
forth from the Green Bag; for there is at
least Cotton Garden, where the most
strictly modest matron may go, without
feeling, that if she carries thither the
most chaste virgin, that virgin's face will
ever there be suffused with a blush; for
in that place, and amongst the witnesses
themselves-amongst the agents of this
plot-amongst the contrivers of it there-
amongst those who appear before your
lordships to give utterance to the abomi-
nations of their own fancy-amongst them,
it turns out, that there is never one whisper
heard on any thing even remotely con-
nected with the subject which so much
vitiates the mind and debases, I will say,
the reputation of this country every where
else! My lords, if your lordships chose
to believe this, far be it from me to inter-
rupt an illusion so pleasing, even by call-
ing it such; for it is delightful to have
any such spot for the mind to repose upon.
If your lordships can believe it, do so in
God's name! But if you do not believe it,
I say, as I said before, you must believe
something else-if you do not believe it,
you must believe, that all the witnesses
who have said so, and they are all those
who are in that d6p6t, are perjured again
and again.
My lords; the course of my observa-
tions has now brought me to personages
of still greater importance in this case,
than either the captain or the mate, al-
though my learned friend, the solicitor-
general, has stated them to be witnesses
of infinite importance-I mean Demont
and Sacchi; whom I trust I shall be ex-
cused for coupling together, united, as
they appear to be, between themselves by
the closest ties of friendship, resembling
each other, as they do, in all the material
particulars of their history, as connected
at least with the present story; both living
under the roof of the Queen and enjoy-
ing her bounty and protection; both re-
luctantly dismissed; both soliciting to be
taken back into place and favour-con-

Bill of Pains and Penalties


nected together since, by the same ties,
living together in great intimacy, both in
the native mountains of Switzerland, and
afterwards upon their arrival in this coun-
try ; remaining in this country about the
same period of time, and that above
twelve months; employing themselves dur-
ing those twelve months in the way best
adapted to fit them for the business in
which they were to be employed, by ob-
taining access to our best classic writers,
and attaining a knowledge of our lan-
guage, though they modestly brag not
of their proficiency in this respect, but
choose to avail themselves of the assist-
ance of an interpreter, which has this
advantage, that it gives them the op-
portunity of preparing an answer to the
question which they understand, while
the interpreter is furnishing them with a
needless translation.
My lords; the other points of resem-
blance are so many, that I shall not detail
them; for your lordships will see them
when I come to enter into the particulars
of their evidence. But I wish, in the
first place, to remind your lordships what
sort of a person Mademoiselle Demont
describes herself to be; because it signi-
fies very little what we shall be able to
show her to be. I had rather take her
own account of herself. I cannot wish
for more; and I am sure she could give
us no less, with any ordinary regard to her
own safety; for as to desire of truth, I
say nothing upon this occasion. She is a
person of a romantic disposition, naturally
implanted in her mind, and which has
been much improved by her intercourse
with the world. She is an enemy to mar-
riage, as she says in her letters. She does
not like mankind in the abstract-" potius
amica omnibus quamlibet inimica" I think
we may say, from some things which came
out afterwards-mankind in the abstract
she rather objects to; but she makes an
exception in favour of such a near friend
as Sacchi, whom she dignifies by the title
of an Italian gentleman; though he, un-
grateful man, to justify her dislike of man-
kind, will not return the compliment, by
acknowledging her to be a countess But
this Italian gentleman, whom she will not
acknowledge to be a servant, came over
with her. Marriage, she says, she does
not like. She loves sweet liberty; and in
the pursuit of this mountain nymph"
over her native hills and in this country,
your lordships see the sort of company in
which it lands her; namely, that of Mr.

165 against her Majesty.
Sacchi, not to mention Krouse the mes-
senger, who goes over to fetch her, and
brings the reluctant fair to appear as a
witness upon the present occasion.
But far be it from me, my lords, to
deny the accomplishments of this person.
By no means. She is the most perfect
specimen-she is the most finished model-
of the complete waiting-maid, that I be-
lieve the world has ever seen actually ex-
isting. I believe none of the writers of
her own country, or of ours, that she is
now studying, will give a more complete
specimen-neither Moliere, nor Le Sage,
nor our own Congreve or Cibber-than
that which she has given, without any as-
sistance, in this House. I cannot deny
her the greatest readiness-that she is at
no loss in writing I cannot deny-that she
is not at all sterile in her descriptions
upon those subjects on which she enters,
until she is brought into contrast with her
own letters, and until my learned friend
Mr. Williams begins his cross-examina-
tion. I cannot deny that she possesses a
caution which would do honour to a Ma-
chiavel of a waiting-maid; that she is
gifted with great circumspection; that
she possesses infinite readiness at devising
excuses and adjusting one part of her evi-
dence with another; that they were well
formed and well devised, and that if the
thing could have been done-which it
cannot by the eternal laws of truth-she
would have succeeded in blinding and
deluding her hearers. She showed great
art in endeavouring to reconcile the
stories she had told, with the contents
of the letters which were produced; which
letters she had not forgotten, though she
did not know that they were still in ex-
istence and ready to be produced against
her. Had she been aware of their preser-
vation, and had her patrons been aware of
their contents, your lordships would never
have seen her face here; as you have not
seen the faces of seventy other witnesses,
whom they dare not call, and whom they
have shipped off; like so much meat, or
live lumber, for their native country. Far
be it from me, my lords, to deny the ac-
complishments of this person Nor do I
deny that she is a great adept at intrigue;
which, indeed, she piques herself upon.
She would never forgive me if I denied
her that merit. Her constant practice
is, to dealing double entendres: Sacchi does
the same. She in her letters to her sister;
and he in his conversation with Mr. Mar-
rietti. So that it is impossible to know

OCT. 3, 1820. [166
what they mean. In short, to them may
be applied what was said of old of a whole
people-" tribuo illis literas de multarum
artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis le-
poremn, ingeniorum acumen, dicendi copiam ;
denique etiam, si qua sibi alia sumunt non
repugno; testimontorum religionem etfidem
nunquam ista natio coluit: totiusque hu-
jusce rei quce sit vis, quce auctoritas, quod
pondus ignorant." I hear her candour
praised by some persons-and why ? Be-
cause she admits she was turned off for a
story which proved to be false. I hear
her praised too for her other admissions;
and what were those? When she was
asked, if she was sincere in such and such
praises which she bestowed upon her ma-
jesty, she said, in some of them she
was, but not in all-in a part she was, but
not in the whole. Were you in want of
money ?" Never."- Did you never
write to your sister, I am in want of
money?' It may be so; but if I did
so, it was not true."-So there is no con-
nexion in rerum nature, in this person's
case, between the thing being true and
her saying it, nor any opposition in this
person's mind, in a thing being downright
falsehood, and her saying and writing it.
Truly, this is her own account of herself;
and yet, to my no small astonishment, I
have heard her praised for the candour
with which she gave this account, by
persons of moderate capacity.
My lords; I need hardly remind your
lordships-[ need hardly remind any
person whose capacity is above the
meanest-I need hardly tell any man who
is not fit to be turned out in the fields
among those animals whom he sometimes
abuses by using-I need hardly say to
any one, See what is the effect of this!
Will it be said-be it-that she uses
double entendres, that she tells falsehoods
freely to gain her own ends; yet, that
the candour of making these admissions,
the ingenuousness of youth with which
she tells you that she tells falsehoods
by wholesale, so that she cannot be de-
pended upon for a word that she utters, is
a blandishment more seductive than all her
personal charms, that it binds us to her,
though not her personal lovers, and that we
open our ears to all her tales because she is
so engaging a liar, and acknowledges, with
so much readiness, that there is not a word
of truth in her late story ? My lords, in any
body but a witnessyou maybe pleased with
such candour-in any one except one
whose whole credit depends upon the

truth of her story. You may say, Poor,
dear, innocent Swiss Shepherdess, how
ingenuous thy mind !" but as to a witness,
I never before heard so strange a reason
for giving credit, as to cite the candour
with which she admitted that she was
not to be believed.
My lords; look at her letters-look at
her explanations of them. I will not go
through them in detail; but I will tell
you-and the more you look at them the
more you will be convinced of this truth,
that her explanations of them are impos-
sible-that the double entendres do not fit
--that the explanations she gives do not
tally with what appears in black and
white. Her gloss does not suit her text:
they are totally inconsistent; and the
clear contents of the four corners of the
document show that what she stated is un-
true. The letters want nothing to make
them perfectly intelligible. Her key does
not fit her cipher. The matter only be-
comes doubtful as she envelopes it in
falsehood, by the inventions of the mo-
ment, by her extempore endeavours to
get rid of the indisputable meaning of
her own hand-writing. My lords, a plain
man knows how to deal with these things.
He does not entangle himself in the mi-
serable webs which this dirty working
creature attempts to throw around him:
be goes straight on, if he be a wise and
pn honest man, to see justice done to the
object of a perjured conspiracy: he goes
straight through, and believes those, and
those only, who show themselves to be
worthy of credit; and I pray to God, that
your lordships may so believe, and not
stand an exception, a solitary exception,
to the conviction of all the rest of man-
kind! I hope your lordships will believe
this woman to have been sincere, when she
says that the Queen was good and innocent
,-that at that time she spoke the language
of her heart in the eloquence of her feel-
ings, and only has since been corrupted,
when having been refused to be taken back
into that service where she had never re-
ceived aught but favour and kindness, she
fell into the hands of theother conspirators
against the honour of her illustrious mis-
I forgot, my lords, in admitting the qua-
lities-of this female, to make another con-
cession. She is kindly attached to her
own sister. She loves her with a sincere
affection. She tells you so. Her prin-
ciple in her conduct upon this occasion,
if she is believed, was anxiety for her ser-

Bill of Pains and Penalties

vice and interest. Now, I do not believe
the story which follows: and it is not I
who am calumniating Demont, because
I am taking her own account of herself,
which I do not believe. Mine is a plain
story. She represents herself as affection.
ate towards that sister, heartily attached
to her interest, only anxious to promote
it-her sister just coming into the world
at the innocent age of fifteen-and that
she does all she can to obtain a place for
that sister in a house which, if you be-
lieve a tittle of what she told you, ought to
have the name, not of a palace, as the
Attorney General says, but of a bro-
thel. She has two sisters, indeed; she is
equally attached to both; she describes
the letter as written immediately after
leaving those scenes, immediately after
having been unwillingly turned out of
this brothel-unwilling to leave it, she
says, she was, although she admits that
(differing from her sisters in that respect),
she was rich and they were poor. She
was under no necessity of submitting to
that contamination, to which no neces;
sity ought to induce an honest woman to
bend. But though she was under no ne-
cessity, the honest Swiss chamber-maid
balances the profits of her place against
its disgrace ; acting upon the principle of
the Roman emperor, who, so that he
raised a tax, was not over anxious as to the
materials from which the filthy imposi-
tion was obtained. Though she admits
that the house is worse than an ordinary
brothel, and loves her sisters, the elder as
well as the younger, she is occupied for
six months after she leaves it ; first, in en-
deavouring, as I told your lordships, to
obtain for the virgin of fifteen a place, to
initiate her there ; and next, to keep the
maturer girl of seventeen in possession of
so comfortable and so creditable a situa-
tion. Such is Demont by her own ac-
count I do not believe her so bad-I
believe no woman so bad, as she now
finds it necessary to tell you she is, be-
cause, unexpectedly, we bring out her
own hand-writing against her. I believe
every word of her letter to be sincere. I
believe she did right and well in wishing
to retain her own place, to keep one sister
there, and to obtain employment for ano-
ther ; but I also believe, that having been
driven thence, and disappointed in her
hopes of being taken back, she invented
the story she has now told, not knowing
that these letters were in existence, and
would be brought in evidence against


f19] against her Majesty. OCT. 3, 1820. [170
her. But she was sworn in Lincoln's-Inn mending his credit by this last adjunct.
Fields, before she knew of these letters be- But, my lords, this is my least objection to
ing in existence. Had she known of this Sacchi. I must be allowed to say, that the
fact; I have no doubt she would rather have fact, that such men may have bravery
forgone all the advantages she has reaped, enough to induce their masters to give
for coming forward as a leading witness in them a pair of colours, is not the best
theplotagainst the Queen, thanhavemade positive proof of their being the most
her appearance at your lordships bar. sincere and the most scrupulous of man-
So much for this lady. I now come kind. But look, my lords, at the account
to that amiable gentleman M. Sacchi. you have of him from himself. He too
And I observe, my lords, with great deals in double entendres. He has gone
satisfaction, a most pleasing symptom of by three whole names and a diminutive;
liberality in the present times, as exhi- two of them we know,.and the third we do
bited in the liberal reception which this not know; but by three names and a half
witness has met with among your lord- has hegone. When became to this coun-
ships, and in the pains which have been try he began his double entendres as soon
taken, both by those who produced him, as he came in contact with his beloved
and those who afterwards examined him, Demont. He told two double entendres
to increase the estimation in which it was -if I may use four syllables instead of
wished that he should beheld. It shows, the short Saxon word. For if men will
my lords, how the age is improving. It do this frequently and continually-if
shows how vulgar prejudices against they will do it for a great object, they
Buonaparte and the French nation are get into the habit of doing it for no
wearing away. I well remember the object, but mere sport and playfulness.
time when nobody would have been He tells first this double entendre-" that
very well pleased to bring forward, as a he had come in the service of a Spanish
principal witness in a case of any kind, family." Then he tells another-that
a man whose recommendation was, that he had a law-suit." We have never
he had been a soldier of Buonapart6, heard what that was, nor any thing more
that he had served in any of his cam- about it-that he came over in conse-
paigns, and had been promoted by that quence of a law-suit, a process with her
Corsican adventurer-that usurper-that royal highness." How, then, did he get
revolutionary chief-as it was the fashion into the situation in which he is now
to call him. Nevertheless, now that a living with his own servant, seeing that
witness against the Queen has this merit he was so sorry at being turned away
to boast of, it is brought forward, as if we from the service of the Queen, where he
had never heard any thing-as if we had was first employed at the lowest wages of
never been sickened by whole volumes of a courier, and afterwards as a poor
abuse which had been poured forth, for equerry ? My lords, you must believe
the purpose of showing, that the very that he has got money nobody knows
name of a French hussar, particularly if whence ; or you must disbelieve the story
he happened to be a servant of Buona- altogether.
part, was just the name for every But, my lords, there is another similari-
thing most profligate and abandoned. ty between Sacchi and Demont. He is
Now, my lords, without having ever been asked, How much money had you in
one of those who approved of the excess your name at your banker's at Lausanne ? "
to which this abuse was carried on the He answers-" Fifty Louis." Will you
part of ourselves and of our neighbours, swear you had not more than that at
I nevertheless cannot help thinking, that a one time at that banker's ?"-" I had
cast-off servant, a courier who pretends to no more than those fifty Louis." Will
be a gentleman and now has his servant you swear you never had a credit which
to wait upon him, and who says Thank empowered you to draw upon that bank-
God, I was always in easy circumstances," er for a larger sum than this ?"-" I
though he was once living on the wages never had. Haveyou never represent-
of a common courier-who can only say, ed that you had a larger sum or a great-
that he was a common soldier in the French er credit ? "-" I do not remember to
army, and was refused a commission in have said. Suppose any of your lord-
the Swiss army but was offered the ships were asked to speak to a fact, and
place of a serjeant-would, a few years you say-" positively not,"-" most cer-
ago, have stood very little chance of tainly not,"-" I know it is not so,"-

nobody would dare to put the next ques-
tion to you-at least I know very few of
your lordships to whom they would dare
to put it-" did you ever say so ? It
could only be put to any one of your
lordships in joke, or in consequence of the
greatest familiarity subsisting between
the parties. For you had answered that
question before. If you are a man to be
believed upon your oath, have you not an-
swered the question, whether you ever
told any person you had more at your
banker's, by saying you know you had no
more at your banker's ? If you had no
more at your banker's, you never could
have said so; for if you had, you would
have been guilty of a double entendre.
But not so with Sacchi, or whatever his
names, great or small, may be-" I may
have done so-I cannot swear when I am
in doubt."* The same as to his let-
ters. He was asked, Did you ever re-
present to any person, after you had left
the service of her royal highness, that
you were in a destitute condition ?"-
" Never." Did you ever intreat any
person of her royal highness's household
to have compassion on your dreadful
situation, after you had left her royal
highness ? "-" I have never been in a
dreadful situation. Did you ever re-
present "-there I was stopped-" Did
you ever say "-but he had heard all the
argument about representing-" Did you
ever say to any person that your conduct
towards her royal highness was liable
to the charge of ingratitude with respect
to a generous benefactor ? "-" Never ."
" Will you swear that you never intreat-
ed any one of the suite of her royal high-
ness, after you had left her service, to
take compassion on your situation ?"
-" It may be." Is that your hand-
writing ?-a letter being put into his
hands-" It s. Is that your hand-writ-
ing ? "-another letter being put into his
hands-" It is."t Now, in these letters
he has taxed himself with ingratitude
in the plainest words. Luckily, he had
forgotten those letters. Would any of
your lordships shelter yourselves under
such a despicable pretext as to say, Oh !
I did not say it, I wrote it ? Litera
scripta-Your lordships shall see the Let-
But your lordships will recollect what
passed afterwards; for I now come to a

See Vol. 2, p. 1288.
t See Vol. 2, p. 1287.

Bill of Pains and Penalties [ 179
providential accident-if I may use such
contradictory terms, in compliance with
the common understanding of them; I
now come to an accident, but which I
call a providence in favour of innocence
-which is always the care of Providence.
Sacchi was asked by my learned friend
the attorney-general, You have stated,
that when you came to this country, you
assumed the name of Milani, what was
the reason why you assumed that name ?"
To which he answered, I took this name
on account of the tumult (tumulto) which
had taken place, and of the danger I
should have run if I had come under my
name, knowing that I should have been
known."-" When was it that you as-
sumed the name by which you now go ?"
" It was immediately after the affair that
happened at Dover."* Now, luckily, he
had forgotten the date; happily, he did
not recollect, that he came over to this
country in July in the year 1819, and
that the tumult at Dover happened in
July 1820. These, my lords, are those
providential circumstances by which con-
spiracies are detected ; and but for which,
every one of your lordships may be their
victims to-morrow. Now, I call upon
your lordships to see how the witness
gets out of this. After a short interval
in the examination, your lordships will
find in page 459 of the printed Minutes,
that which I will read for the sake of
connection; and I do it the more freely,
because it is the last quotation with which
I shall trouble your lordships from this
evidence. In answer to a question put to
him by the attorney-general, Sacchi says,
" I took this name on account of the
tumult which had taken place, and of the
danger which I should have run if I had
come under my own name, knowing that
I should have been known." When
did you assume the name by which you
now go?" Then he instantly recollects,
" It was immediately after the affair that
happened at Dover." The name he now
goes by, he assumed since the affair at
Dover; the name of Milani he assumed a
year before at Paris. My learned friend,
the attorney-general, leaves him there-
reasoning, from his knowledge of these
matters, that he would only make bad
worse. But one of your lordships took it
up; and if there ever was a specimen of
shifting and beating about the bush, to
shelter a mortal from an unlucky scrape

See Vol. 2, p. 1341.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs