The The fact of sleeping under the tent was had helped him to fill up the vacancy. Vassali's evidence he looked to with great jealousy. Now, as to Catania: taking all the witnesses together, and coupling all that passed at Aum, in the polacca, and at Carlsruhe, with what occurred at Catania, no inference could be drawn from such a chain but that an adulterous intercourse had taken place. As I Lord Erskine contended that there was no ground for proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, since the charge against her Majesty was a high crime and misdemeanour, for which she might have been tried by constitutional means. this had not been the case, if he believed the Queen as guilty as from the evidence he believed her innocent, he would vote against the Bill, because an unconstitutional mode of proceeding was adopted, where a constitutional one was open. must, said the Noble Lord (Erskine), soon terminate my life; but happy shall I be if I die advocating those great constitutional principles, the vindicating of which, in early life, raised me from the rank of an humble individual. The Lord Chancellor had stated that the fact of adulterous intercourse was the only one to be considered. He denied this. The Noble Lord then proceeded to read the preamble of the Bill, and to comment on the gross indecencies with which she was charged for some years, and in various countries; and yet this sweeping accusation had dwindled down to a charge of her sleeping on deck on board a polacca, attended by her chamberlain, and this only sworn to by two witnesses, who did not even declare that they had any suspicion of a criminal intercourse having taken place. It would be observed, too, that there had been no mystery about her Majesty's con duct-no impression of that sort had been produced. [Here the Noble Lord exhibited symptoms of strong indisposition, and a pause of a minute or two took place. His Lordship then attempted to resume, but after a few words, sunk down as in a fit. He was caught in his fall by some of the Peers near him, the windows were opened, and a glass of water brought: but his Lordship continued so ill, that he was obliged to be borne out of the House by Mr. Baron Garrow and (we believe) Earl Grey.] Lord Lauderdale now proceeded to address their Lordships. He did not ask for a direct evidence of the perpetration of the act of adultery; all he asked, was such evidence as would satisfy any man of plain common sense. Was there, then, such evidence? He was most decidedly convinced there was. He had never known in any case a combination of circumstances so strongly leading to the conclusion of guilt. The Noble Lord here proceeded proceeded to recite and comment on the circumstances of Bergami's elevation, as proved by the evidence for the defence. His Lordship laid particular weight on the caution which Mr. Keppel Craven had presumed to give to her Majesty, as to being seen walking with Bergami, when he was in the situation of a courier. The Noble Lord next directed the attention of their Lordships to the introduction of so many persons of Bergami's family into the service of her Majesty. The appointment of the Countess Oldi to the situation of sole Lady of Honour, was most powerful evidence of guilt. Then there was the change in the apartments on board the Leviathan. It would be recollected that Lady Charlotte Lindsay said, that in the Clorinde her Royal Highness's female attendants slept near her; but on board the Leviathan, the most suspicious arrangements had taken place, and Captain Pechell refused to sit at the table, in consequence of the fact that this courier, who had waited at table on a former occasion, had been dignified to a seat at it. Cap. tain Pechell had acted by this refusal in a manner highly creditable to himself. The Noble Lord then animadverted on the testimony of Lieutenants Hownam and Flynn, whom he designated as two perjured witnesses, and who contradicted each other. Bergami's titles were next the subject of remark; and the Noble Lord thought the whole of these circumstances weighed much in the consideration of the guilt or innocence of the Queen. The case of Aum was the next he would notice; and it was in the evidence of Majocchi and Dumont that the Princess and Bergami slept under the tent; and altho' Hieronimus, Schiavini, Austin, and all the Knights of St. Caroline were there, not one of them had been called to contradict their statement. He had gone much into the examination of the evidence, not from any weight which he thought his views of it might have, but that the country might know the grounds on which he gave his vote. The Earl of Roseberry could not reconcile it to his honour and conscience as a Juryman to give his assent to the passing of the Bill. He implored their Lordships to ponder well the effects which the passing of the Bill might probably have: to view it not only as a question of justice, but of expediency. If any doubt-if the least doubt existed on the minds of their Lordships-if there was any deficiency in the evidence, the benefit ought to be thrown into the scale for the defendant. Lord Redesdale thought the proof was full, complete, and absolute. He could not conceive how there could be a doubt on the subject in the mind of any reasonable man. He had considered the evi dence attentively-he had examined it over and over, and his impression was, that the case had been more fully proved than ever any case in which a contrariety of opinion existed. He proceeded to consider the proceeding in a constitutional point of view. He thought it surprising that a Bill of Pains and Penalties should be objected to as an unconstitutional measure, when the whole Constitution of the Country depended on one-the exclusion of the Stuarts by the Act of Settlement. All Divorce Bills were in fact Bills of Pains and Penalties. His Lordship illus trated his view of the case by a number of references, and having concluded exactly at four o'clock, the House adjourned. Nov. 3. Earl Grosvenor commenced an address to their Lordships by observing, that he had throughout this painful proceeding paid the most undivided attention to all which had been submitted, and the result of his attention was a determination on his part to say "not content" to the second reading of this Bill. (Hear, Hear!) It was impossible, he said, not to have observed, that the Noble and Learned Lord Chancellor had endeavoured to take an unprejudiced view of the question, and to hold the balance of the scale even. With respect to the erasure of her Majesty's name from the Liturgy, he must say this, that whether it was done by the Archbishop of Canterbury, bringing the book before the King, or in what other manner he did not know; but if he (Earl Grosve nor) was the Archbishop of Canterbury(laughter)—and that he was sent for on such an occasion, and ordered to strike the name from the Liturgy, he should have thrown the book in the face of the person who asked him, sooner than have complied with the order. The Earl of Harewood said, that much of the evidence had been contradicted, much stood on loose grounds, but other parts, he was sorry to say, stood on a firmer foundation. The effect of the whole was, he must say, calculated to create a strong suspicion respecting the subject of their inquiry. He was convinced that the effect of passing such a Bill would be this, that it would cause the greatest discontent among the people of the country. If any thing could be calcu lated more than another to create a false impression, it would be the passing a measure which was intended to hold out the Queen in a degraded view to the country. His vote was grounded on the inexpediency and impolicy of the Bill. (Hear, hear!) The Earl of Donoughmore observed, that if the Noble Lord (Earl Harewood) thought the Queen not innocent, he should propose propose some measure, such as in his judgment the case called for; but he had contented himself with opposing the Bill, and refraining from proposing any measure in its substitution. His Lordship, after some further observations, concluded by declaring, that he felt it his duty on this occasion to say "Content" to the motion that this Bill be read a second time. Earl Grey maintained, that to support chargés such as were adduced against the Queen, there ought to be clear, unequivocal, and irresistible proof. The proof ought to be derived from witnesses who were above all suspicion; and in proportion as the rank of the accused was high, and the threatened penalties severe proportion as the proceeding was new, anomalous, and extraordinary-a departure from all form and precedent-the evidence ought to be of the most unimpeached character. - in If their Lordships could believe the testimony of Majocchi, Dumont, and Sacchi, there was an end of all doubt, and the fact of adultery was completely proved. But all his Noble Friends who had preceded him had agreed that the evidence of these witnesses was to be completely discarded. The Earl of Liverpool expressed his firm opinion that no possible motive could be assigned for the promotion of Bergami, except the disposition to criminal indulgence, which influenced the conduct of her Royal Highness towards him. -Adjourned. Nov. 4. The Earl of Liverpool said, that upon the whole of the evidence, up to her Royal Highness's arrival at Augusta, in 1816, there was such a mass of testimony, not only not entirely contradicted, but partially admitted, that a moral conviction must be brought to the mind of every unprejudiced man, of the existence of an adulterous intercourse. Lord Arden and Lord Falmouth opposed the second reading of the Bill, and Earls Harrowby and Lauderdale spoke against the divorce clause. Lord Ellenborough said, "the solemn inquiry into the conduct of the Queen has taken place, and we are now arrived at that point in which it becomes our duty to adopt such measures as, considering the evidence that has been produced, may be most just to the parties, and most conducive to public morals and public safety. When I voted for an inquiry into the conduct of the Queen, I certainly expected that her guilt would have been so evident, .so clear, so incontestible, that it would be impossible not to vote for the Bill. I also thought that public opinion would change, and that the public voice would call upon us to pass this Bill.-I cannot declare the Queen innocent; but I cannot consent to say she is guilty! Several allegations against the Queen have been proved, and I cannot give my vote for the Bill when a great part of the evidence has failed. I must also declare, that I feel great unwillingness in passing any Bill, against which there is in the public mind a great, and almost universal objection. I certainly regret this feeling in the public mind. This is a great question of public morals and of national character, one that was calculated to make an impression on the public mind, by fixing infamy and guilt. But, considering the situation in which the Queen stands with the public, to pass this Bill would be deemed an act of such violence that it would not produce the necessary effect, but a re-action. I vote against the Bill, because I think it would be injurious in its consequences; but I must at the same time observe, that we should not suffer the conduct of her Majesty, as proved at your Lordships' Bar, to pass without severe censure. A Queen of England is exalted above all the rest of her sex. We neither require talents nor exertions from her; but she is required to be a model of female virtue! But there is no man of any party, who has heard the evidence, but must come to this opinion, that the Queen is one of the last women in the country whom a man of honour would wish his wife to resemble, or his daughters to imitate. (Hear, hear!) "I give my vote against the second reading of the Bill," said Lord Ellenborough; "but I at the same time must say, that the House ought not to separate without expressing a strong opinion as to her Majesty's conduct, founded upon the untouched parts of the evidence." Lords Ashburton and Erskine strenuously opposed the Bill; and Lord De Dunstanville, Lord Manners, and the Duke of Newcastle supported it.-Adjourned. Nov. 6. The Marquis of Lansdowne pointed out several inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, and strongly deprecated the introduction of Bills of Pains and Penalties, as contrary to the principles of the Constitution. The Duke of Northumberland said, "I feel it my duty to state my conviction, that, in a long course of indecent familiarities, adultery has been committed by the Princess of Wales with her servant Bergami. With this impression on my mind, I never can consent that such a person shall perform the functions of Queen of this realm, or be at the head of female society in this chaste and moral country. I feel no hesitation in saying, that I shall give my vote for this Bill as it now stands. Lord Howard, the Earl of Enniskillen, Lord Calthorp, the Marquis of Stafford, Earl of of Grantham, and the Earl of Blessington, strongly opposed the second reading of the Bill; and Lord De Clifford, Lord Gosford, and the Duke of Athol, supported it. The Duke of Somerset condemned the whole of the proceedings respecting her Majesty; and allowing the fullest extent of evidence, he could not see that a sufficient case had been made out for a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Lord Grenville thought that, looking to the sudden elevation of Bergami, and such facts in the case against her Majesty as had been admitted, or had been proved by unimpeached witnesses, there was a mass of circumstantial evidence, such as, before a jury, would be held sufficient in 999 out of 1000 cases, to establish the charge of adulterous inter course. Lord Rosslyn said, the charge was for a long period of adulterous intercourse, and yet not a single fact of adultery had been proved. In judging of the polacca, their Lordships were not to consider the circumstances of sleeping under the tent, as if it were a room in a house, where the fact would necessarily imply guilt. His Lordship, after some further observations, concluded by stating his determination to oppose the second reading of the Bill. A division then took place, when there appeared for the second reading, Contents .123 Non-contents.............. 95 "CAROLINE REGINA, "To the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled. "The Queen has learnt the decision of the Lords upon the Bill now before them. In the face of Parliament, of her family, and of her country, she does solemnly protest against it. Those who avowed themselves her prosecutors, have presumed to sit in judgment upon the question between the Queen and themselves. Peers have given their voices against her who had heard the whole evidence for the charge, and absented themselves during her defence. Others have come to the discussion from the Secret Committee with minds biassed by a mass of slanders, which her enemies have not dared to bring forward in the light. The Queen does not avail herself of her right to appear before the Committee; for to her the details of the measure must be a matter of indifference; and, unless the course of these unexampled proceedings should bring the Bill before the other branch of the Legislature, she will make no reference whatever to the treatment experienced by her during the last 25 years. She now, most deliberately, and before God, asserts that she is wholly innocent of the crime laid to her charge; and she awaits, with unabated confidence, the final result of this unparalleled investigation." On the motion of Lord Dacre, the Address was received, after some animadversions from their Lordships. The House having gone into a Cummittee on the Bill, a considerable discussion ensued on the respective clauses. The Archbishop of York opposed the divorce clause, as well as the Bp. of Chester, Lord King, Bp. of Worcester, and several of their Lordships. The Abp. of Canterbury, the Bp. of London, the Bp. of Llandaff, and others, supported it.-Adjourned. Nov. 8. The House having gone into a Committee on the Bill of Pains and Penalties, the Archbishop of Tuum declared his determination to vote against the third reading, if the divorce clause were retained. After several Noble Lords had spoken at considerable length, the House divided, when it was carried by 129 to 62, that the divorce clause should stand part of the Bill. Nov. 9. Lord Shaftesbury then brought up the Report of the Bill of Paius and Penalties, and the amendments thereon read by the Lord Chancellor a first and second time. Nov. 10. The Duke of Bedford contended that, in the whole catalogue of charges against her Majesty, there was not one of the slightest importance supported by credible testi mony. The Lord Chancellor repeated his reasons for coming to the conclusion that her Majesty was guilty. The Bp. of Chester condemned the language which he had heard used with regard to his Majesty in the course of these proceedings. One Noble Lord (Grosvenor) had said, that had he been Archbishop, he would have thrown the prayerbook in the King's face; and a Counsel at their Lordship's Bar had presumed to liken the Sovereign, who now presided over this great nation, to the most abominable and atrocious tyrant of antient history. (Hear, hear.) He would be bold to say, that, in future times, the pages of our history, which detailed the acts and conduct of George IV. would bear bear a comparison with those of the brightest periods of the reigns of the most eminent Sovereigns which had preceded him. He felt it necessary now to state the reasons which would guide him in the future progress of this Bill, He voted for the second reading of the Bill, convinced of the moral and legal guilt of her Majesty. He had opposed the divorce clause in the Committee on religious scruples. He was thus placed in a singular situation. He could not oppose the third, upon the grounds which induced him to vote for the second reading. could not support the third reading of the Bill, which contained the divorce clause. When their Lordships came to a decision, therefore, he should withdraw himself, and not vote at all. He Lord Erskine combated the arguments of the Lord Chancellor, and concluded with solemnly assuring the House that, if these were the last words he had to speak, he did not consider the evidence given at their Lordships' Bar as establishing a proof of her Majesty's guilt. The Duke of Grafton and the Marquis of Donegal spoke against the Bill, and the Marquis of Huntley in its support. The Bp. of Gloucester said, he should vote against the Bill on account of the divorce clause, which was inconsistent with the general tenour of the Christian Religion, and with the standing orders of the House, which were founded upon the principles of impartial justice. Lord Alvanly and Lord Darnley would vote against the measure, as not being supported by evidence. Lord Ellenborough opposed it, because it did not contain the promised modifications, but observing, that among the peculiarities of the case was this, that the strongest evidence of her Majesty's guilt was to be derived from her own witnesses. The House then divided; when there appeared for the third reading 108, against it 99. As soon as the state of the division was announced, Lord Liverpool said, he could not be ignorant of the state of public feeling with regard to this measure, and it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the Bill should be read a third time only by a majority of 9 votes. Had the third reading been carried by as considerable a number of Peers as the second, he and his colleagues would have felt it their duty to persevere with the Bill, and to send it down to the other branch of the Legislature. In the present state of the country, however, and with the division of sentiment, so nearly balanced, just evinced by their Lordships, they had come to the determination not to proceed further with it. He should accordingly move, that the question that the Bill do pass, be put on GENT. MAG. November, 1820. this day six months. [The most vehement cheering took place at this unexpected declaration.] The Duke of Montrose said, he should oppose the motion for throwing out the Bill. He was convinced of her Majesty's criminality, and should never look up to her as Queen. The motion was then put and agreed to, and the House adjourned to the 23d inst. the day the Commons were to meet. HOUSE OF LORDS, Nov. 23. This day the Lord Chancellor entered the House, about ten minutes before two o'clock. The Lords Commissioners (being the Earl of Liverpool, the Lord Chancellor, and Earl Bathurst) took their seats before the Throne, when the Lord Chancellor directed the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod to require the attendance of the other House in this, in order to hear his Majesty's assent by Commission to a certain Bill, and also to a Commission for proroguing the present Parliament. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod soon returned to the House, accompanied by the Speaker and several Members of the Commons; when the Right Hon. Gentleman took his station at the Bar. The Lord Chancellor then informed both Houses, that the Lords Commissioners were empowered to declare and notify the Royal Assent to a Bill, agreed to by both Houses, for the Relief of Robert Earl of Harborough, from certain disabilities which he had incurred by sitting and voting in Parliament, not having first taken the requisite oaths. The above Bill was passed in the usual way. PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT. The Lord Chancellor then informed both Houses, that his Majesty had been pleased to issue a Commission under the Great Seal, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, for proroguing the present Parliament, from Thursday, the 23d of November instant, to Tuesday, the 23d day of January next, then to be holden in the City of Westminster; and which Commission they would now hear read. The above Commission was immediately read. The Lord Chancellor then declared, that by virtue of the Commission they had just heard read, and in obedience to his Majesty's commands, the Lords Commis. sioners were empowered to prorogue this present Parliament to Tuesday the 23d of January next. The Speaker and the Commons then withdrew from the Bar, and the House soon after broke np. No alterations have at present been made in the arrangements below the Bar, which were fitted up during the Queen'strial. FOREIGN |