Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

degree derogatory to her Royal Highness, and in general circulation in most parts of Europe. He asked them whether it was not their duty to inquire if those reports were or were not true. There was only one mode of doing this; that mode was, to select persons eminent in point of character, of great character for integrity and knowledge, to make that inquiry. Accordingly, as judicious, as proper a selection as could be made, had been adopted. At the head was one known to be a man of the highest respectability-known to possess unimpeachable integrity, and of great skill and knowledge in the laws of his country. He had been at the head of the commission-if commission it was to be called-for the purpose of obtaining, not idle rumour, but evidence of facts, such as could alone be admitted in every court in this country. He asked if any fairer selection could have been made than another gentleman of whom mention had been made in the course of the proceedings, who possessed great practice in the law. A third gentleman, Colonel Brown, he was not acquainted with; but he was told that his character stood as high as that of any of those who had dared to traduce him. Was he justified, then, in saying that it was a duty upon ministers to have instituted an inquiry into the reports circulated? And was he justified in saying that ministers had exercised a sound discretion, liable to no imputation whatever, in selecting persons to conduct the necessary inquiry? He finally considered it certain, that the preamble of the bill was proved, unless the proof should be impeached by evidence, clear, distinct, and satisfactory, on the part of her Majesty.

Thus closed the case against the Queen, but without producing any

of those effects upon the multitude, which ministers appear to have confidently anticipated. On the contrary, it was loudly proclaimed throughout the kingdom, that the mere evidence produced against her, had been fully sufficient for her entire acquittal. We are not accustomed to bow implicitly to the sentiments of this august body, especially in such a temper as then pervaded it. At the same time, we cannot but think, that the testimony had deep and serious flaws, and could scarcely afford conclusions so positive as the agents for the prosecution attempted to draw from it. The facts sworn to indeed seem quite sufficient; and it was rather a presumption in their favour, that they were not more direct and positive, since witnesses deliberately perjured might easily have made them so. Nor can we lay much stress on minute discrepancies in the report of facts, at so many years distance, when they are usually remembered and reported more or less loosely even by respectable persons. The defect lay in the character of the witnesses, in their being all foreigners, and chiefly of the lowest rank. Not that we can concur with certain of our countrymen in thinking that there is neither faith, truth, nor common honesty, on any but one side of the Channel, and that an Italian witness, merely quoad Italian, must be a liar and a scoundrel. Still there was not the same means of learning and knowing the character of persons in that rank of life, as if they had been natives of this country. They themselves did. not lie under the same check, from the opinion of their countrymen and friends, upon so remote a transaction. Considering also that they had been brought to a distant country, under such high auspices, it was difficult for them to avoid opening their minds to some vague and extended hopes,

in case of success. Above all, with regard to the two leading witnesses, it seems clearly to have been proved, that they made averments directly the reverse of those to which they now made oath. They were therefore convicted and confessed liars, and could scarcely expect to be believed, even in speaking the truth. It is vain to reply, that from the nature of the case, it was next to impossible, that any better evidence should have been obtained. The law cannot listen to this plea. If a crime is committed in such circumstances as to render the proof impossible, the evil is without remedy. The guilty must rather be allowed to escape, than the chance be incurred of the innocent suffering. Under these considerations, it does not appear to us, that the proof, as it then stood, was clear from great doubt, or could form a secure basis for any high legislative and judicial proceeding. Whether it ever assumed any other aspect, we shall sently have occasion to inquire.

pre

The case being closed against the Queen, Lord Lauderdale proposed that her Counsel should be asked as to the course which they meant to pursue in the defence. Lord Lonsdale here rose and inquired of Lord Liverpool, whether, if the evidence should appear to justify it, he would be willing to drop the divorce clause, and to confine the bill to the penalty of degradation. Lord Liverpool replied, that no opinion whatever should be formed of the evidence till the whole defence should be before them. It was utterly impossible that any alteration should be made in the bill till the whole case was closed, till the question of the second reading was disposed of, and the bill should be committed. Insinuations had been made in that House and elsewhere, that divorce was the object of the

bill. He could now most distinctly say, that the illustrious individual alJuded to had no wish whatever that the bill should operate as a measure of personal relief. He had introduced the provision of divorce as a plain and fair inference from the other provision of degradation, if that were made out. If, however, a strong feeling existed in the House or in the country, founded on religious considerations, against this provision, he was perfectly willing to withdraw it. The illustrious individual did not wish for it as a measure of personal relief. Earl Grey expressed his satisfaction at the assu rance that the illustrious individual had no personal object in view. At the same time, if the proceeding concluded that her Majesty should incur pains and penalties, degradation from her high and illustrious situation, he thought, must be the necessary consequence. If she should be degraded from the rank, character, and situation of Queen-consort, she ought not to remain the wife of the Sovereign. Not because divorce would be a personal relief, but because it was absurd in terms that one degraded from the rank of Queen should be the consort of the King. A bill degrading the Queen, who was to remain the wife of the King, must be considered a bill degrading the King also. The Earl of Donoughmore entirely concurred with Earl Grey, and expressed his astonishment at the suggestion thrown out by the noble lord opposite.

Counsel being now called, the Chancellor asked Mr Brougham whether it was his wish to proceed with the defence now, or to take the delay offered, in order to collect and arrange the evidence. The answer of the learned counsel was not very perspicuous; but in the course of a pretty long conversation, it appeared, that the wish of the Queen's advocates

was to be allowed to state the case immediately, but with permission to delay, if necessary, bringing forward the whole of the evidence. This was considered as involving a very serious question, and the full consideration of it was postponed till next day.

On the following day (Sept. 9,) Mr Brougham being again asked how he wished to proceed, said, "I am now ready to enter upon her Majesty's defence; and then, if I shall be so advised, to call evidence in support of that defence. If, however, I shall also be advised to call witnesses not now in the country, in such a case, perhaps, it will be necessary for me to entreat the indulgence of your Lordships, to enable me to bring before you that evidence after I shall have opened her Majesty's case, and begun with the evidence in support of it."

Lord Erskine strongly urged, that counsel should be allowed to proceed in the manner they desired. When he practised at the bar, he should have complained 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.

Lord Lauderdale, however, urged, that if an adjournment was necessary, now was the only proper time.

The Lord Chancellor felt the duty he had now to discharge peculiarly painful. He could not but admit that the Queen suffered by matters being left in their present state. Their Lordships were indeed imperiously bound not to infer any thing approaching to guilt, till they had heard the defence. Still it would be most unjust to represent, as it was impossible even to

`

hope, that either the House or the public could, after what they had heard, go away without some prejudice unfavourable to the Queen. Their lordships, then, had but a choice of evils; and it was for them to consider what would be the consequence in criminal cases hereafter, if that evidence, which was necessary to the statement of any case which counsel might have to offer, were postponed to an indefinite period after that stateinent had been made. 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 evidence, if he pleased, or, without evidence, take the opinion of the jury; but he must close his case in one way or the other. Whatever confidence he felt in the Queen's Counsel, that they would not make statements which they had not the means of proving, the interests of justice required, that no precedent should be established upon regard to individual character. 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, without a positive statement that they meant to complete it.

Earl Grey, admitting that there was only a choice of evils, insisted that the present difficulty arose out of the previous proceedings of the House their refusal to give a list of witnesses, and a specification of the charges. 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 specification of facts, that list of witnesses, which would have been granted to her in the ecclesiastical courts, and which, if indicted 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 absolutely 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 manner it should be given? He was convinced that the learned counsel would not abuse the privilege demanded by him; and see ing only a choice of evils, occasioned by the course recommended by the noble Lords opposite, and adopted by the House, he thought the least was incurred by granting this privilege. He did ask the House, whether, in the spirit of English law, or in the spirit of universal justice, upon any principle of common humanity 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?

The Earl of Liverpool admitted that there were evils on both sides, and if these had been equal, the benefit ought to be granted to her Majesty. He conceived, however, the inconvenience on one side to be beyond all comparison greater than on the other. Whatever inconvenience the Queen might sustain from a refusal of the list, that inconvenience would be incomparably less than that which would result, not only to the particular case in question, but to the general course of justice, from that application being granted. If

this proceeding were allowed, learned counsel (and he here applied counsel generally) might open a case on false information, which they possessed no means of proving or verifying. Their Lordships might have an imaginary case stated before them, without any evidence whatsoever to support it. What, then, was the difference between a case going forth, together with the evidence on which it was founded, and 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.

The Chancellor then proposed the following resolution :

"That the counsel be called in, and be informed that, if they now proceed to state the case on the part of her Majesty, they must, at the close of that statement, if they mean to produce evidence, be prepared to produce the whole of their proofs in support of the case stated by them; but that the House will, at their re quest, if they are not ready to take this course, adjourn to such reasonable time as the counsel for her Ma jesty may propose before their case is stated, that an opportunity may be allowed them to arrange the defence, and produce the necessary evidence."

This motion was strongly opposed by the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Calthorpe, and Lord Darnley, but was carried by 165 to 60.

Mr Brougham being called in, and informed of this decision, observed, that he would bow to it, as became him; but he now made the proposi tion, that he should be allowed to comment upon the case on the other side, pledging himself that he would not introduce a single word alluding

to any statement or evidence which he might hereafter bring forward. The Chancellor, however, considered comments on the evidence for the prosecution to be, in the strictest sense, part of the defendant's case; so that, though Lord Erskine strongly urged the justice of the application, the motion for granting it was negatived by 179 to 47.

On the following day, Mr Brougham was called upon to state the time when it would be convenient for them to open the case for the defence. That gentleman, repeating the eager anxiety of the Queen to avoid delay, observed, that some time must however be necessary for preparation. He rather exceeded her Majesty's wish in naming Monday fortnight.Some Lords observed, that this period of recess was very inconvenient, as not allowing them time to visit their estates with any comfort. It was answered and admitted, that every motive of private convenience must yield to the performance of their present duty. At the same time, considerable anxiety was shewn, that the day fixed should be one at which counsel positively would be able to proceed. Under these views, Mr Brougham finally fixed upon Tuesday the 3d of October.

The evidence against the Queen, though no obstruction had been offered to its daily publication, had not, as already observed, produced the slightest change in the views and sentiments of that great multitude by whom she was supported. The evidence, indeed, was not without its defects; and it would have been difficult at this moment to have produced any, which would not have swelled the tide that was running in one direction. The interval of three weeks, which preceded the defence, was spent in the continued assemblage of public meetings, where her

Majesty was lauded as the most illustrious of women; in the presentation of numerous addresses of the same tenor as before; and in the return of answers, echoing all the tenets of the radical chiefs. At length, however, the appointed day arrived, and the House having assembled, Mr Brougham produced himself as ready to open the case.

Mr Brougham began with expressing his fears, that he might not do full Justice to the great and perfectly good cause which he had undertaken to dis

cuss.

The apprehension which oppressed him was, that his feeble exertions might have the effect of casting, for the first time, this great cause into doubt, and turning against him the reproaches of those millions of his countrymen now jealously watching the result of these proceedings, and who might perhaps impute it to him if their lordships should reverse that judgment which they had already pronounced upon the charges in the present state of the case. Although fully entitled to employ recrimination, and ready to do so, if necessary, for the interests of his client, that painful course did not seem at present called for. The evidence against her Majesty, he felt, did not now call upon him to utter one whisper against the conduct of her illustrious consort, and he solemnly assured their lordships, that but for that conviction his lips would not at that time be closed. In this discretionary exercise of his duty, in postponing the case which he possessed, their lordships must know that he was waving a right which belonged to him, and abstaining from the use of materials which were unquestionably his own. He felt, however, that, were he now to enter on the branch of his case to which he had alluded, he should seem to quit the higher ground of innocence on which he was proud to stand. He admitted, that her

« AnteriorContinua »