Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

could justify the verdict of guilty. His Lordship finally urged, that this measure was not an impeachment, in which they must have acted strictly in their judicial capacity; it was a bill, and must be considered in the view of policy and expediency. It was not his habit, his temper, or his disposition, to call upon their lordships to desist from a necessary act from fear or apprehension. For proof of this he could appeal to the whole course of his public life. But they were legislating in this case for the public interest; and legislating for the public interests, what could they consider of more importance than the tendency and necessary effects of passing this bill? That there were improper feelings excited, and excited by improper means, he did not deny. He lamented and reprobated many things that were done. He had, on a former occasion, expressed his regret and disapprobation that her Majesty had written such a letter to the King. He had no hesitation now in expressing regret and disapprobation at the answers to addresses to her Majesty. The Queen was ill advised in publishing such answers, and none could blame them more than he did; but they were not, therefore, to pass the bill. If her Majesty, in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, and to which she could not have been accustomed, had suffered her name to be connected with such writings, their lordships were not, therefore, to act under the influence of her conduct in that respect, to find her guilty of another and quite different conduct. But their lordships mistook the state of the public mind if they supposed that the feeling which prevailed throughout the country was the effect of such means as he had adverted to. A noble and learned Lord on the cross bench (Redesdale) had denied that there was any general feeling

in the country against the bill. He would ask that noble and learned Lord, whom he had seen, whom he had heard, what he had seen, or what he had heard, that could have authorised the noble and learned Lord to make this denial? From what was done, from one end of the country to the other, the reverse was manifest. It was done, not by the mob, not by the rabble, as a noble Lord had thought proper to characterise a part of the people--and he could not but lament that such terms should ever fall from any of their lordships, terms which only irritated and insulted, which served only to widen the breach between their lordships and the people, and which tended to deprive the people of their natural and legitimate support. He wished such expressions were never used in that house; but all farmers, artisans, and tradesmen, and all honest men in the country, were decidedly against that bill. This consideration deserved the attention of their lordships, and, in passing this law, it formed an important ground on which to rest their judgment. A division of the two Houses on this question was to be avoided as most inauspicious. It was not a mere division of opinion or judgment; it was a resolution and consent of this House to degrade and render infamous the Queen of the kingdom, while the House of Commons rejected such a proposal at once. Or, if the other House should receive the bill, the consequence would be most hazardous. They had seen that in this House, with only 200 members, and with every disposition to do their duty, there was the greatest difficulty in preserving the dignity and decorum that were necessary. How would it be, then, in the other House? How long, too, would this miserable case, which occupied their lordships so long, be in the other House? All

public business, all questions of the most essential importance to the welfare of the country, must be suspended; all the evidence of this case must be repeated there, and again circulated over the kingdom. If the honour of this country was of so much importance as to require this bill, what must all Europe think of the honour of Parliament in hearing, sifting, and entertaining details such as were before their lordships, and must, if they passed the bill, go before the other House of Parliament? He fairly avowed, that in the outset his prejudices and feelings were unfavourable to the Queen; he did think it possible that a case would be made out that would compel him to vote, however reluctantly, in support of the bill; but as it now stood, viewing it first as a question of guilt or inno. cence, and, next, as a matter of political expediency, he was bound to declare that he could never lay down his head in tranquillity in future, if he did not to his utmost resist its progress. He must therefore give the only vote he could reconcile to his honour and his judgment; and, laying his hand upon his heart, with the deepest sense of the solemnity of the occasion, conscientiously and fearlessly, before God, pronounce-Not guil. ty.

The Earl of Liverpool admitted with the noble Lord, that the question of expediency was one which merited the attention of the House, but he conceived that the time for considering that was the 12th of August, before the bill was brought in, and that now they had nothing to do but to consider, whether the preamble had been sufficiently proved. He wished to admit most distinctly, that whatever any noble Lord might think of all the allegations, no person ought to vote, and he desired that no person would vote, for the second reading,

who did not believe that the adulterous intercourse had been proved by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. One principal part of the evidence related to the elevation of Bergami, and this elevation gave a character to the whole of the transaction, which it was necessary for the House constantty to bear in mind. He did not enter upon this part of the subject for the purpose of giving an opinion whether the act of adultery had or had not been committed at Naples. If the bill depended upon that only, he should feel bound to find the Queen not guilty; suspicion he should undoubtedly entertain, but there seemed to him no evidence that carried the case at Naples beyond grave suspicion. The noble Lord then pointed out the care with which opportunities of indulging this passion had been sought. He had marked the care with which that point had been laboured; the learned counsel had felt that the polacre was a strong obstacle in their path; and had proposed to get over it by carrying an unsuspecting character up to the very point; but he denied that absence of taint; he alleged, not only that there was suspicion before that period, but that there was a moral certainty of guilt. Lord Liverpool finally addressed himself to those noble Lords who were convinced of the Queen's guilt, but did not think it expedient to pass the bill. He called upon them to look at the inconvenience which would ensue on the rejection of this measure, after the accusation had proceeded, and the parties joined issue as to the facts. Would not a rejection of the bill, if they believed her Majesty guilty, be a triumph of guilt under circumstances most fatal to the moral character of the country? He conjured them to reflect well on the consequences of such a proceeding in all their various bearings. Let them bear in mind that her

Majesty could not retire from the bar like a private individual, who might be acquitted from want of evidence or some other cause, and who, after her trial, would be again mixed up and lost sight of in the general mass of society; her Majesty would still be Queen of this country, while in the opinion of many of their lordships her character remained tainted with crimes of the most heinous description, though the adultery might not be legally established. Admitting that they were so situated that they must choose between opposite evils, he would contend that in all such cases the straight-forward course was the most expedient. Whatever might be the inconvenience, if they believed the Queen to be guilty, they were bound to proceed with the bill. He had too much reliance on the good sense and just feelings of the people of this country, to believe that the consequences of passing it would be fatal or injurious. The noble Earl had adverted to the clamour which had been raised upon this subject, and to the public discontent which the measure would create. It was also very truly stated by counsel at the bar, that there were disaffected men who converted this subject into an instrument of their own seditious purposes. Undoubtedly every grievance, every public misfortune, in times like the present, would only serve to increase the exertions of those who entertained designs hostile to the constitution. He did not mean to prejudice the case of the Queen when he attributed such views to some of those who surrounded her; but would to God he could say that she was free from all participation in their acts! But when he looked at most of the answers which

had been returned to the addresses

presented, he would ask any man whether a woman, conscious of innocence, would ever have offered,

adopted, or authorized such answers? If really innocent, she would have abided by the sentiments expressed in her answer to the first address, in which she said that she came to vindicate her own character, and desired that her cause might not be mixed up with any political question. It was at least manifest, that she had since admitted persons about her, who advised and acted in a way the best calculated to produce an impression of her guilt. Far was it from his intention, however, to excite any prejudice against her on that account, which should in the least interfere with the decision of this question. But, if their Lordships thought her guilty, and that by refusing to pass this bill, they would enable guilt to triumph, then let not any base principle of fear prevent them from the discharge of their duty. It was his sincere hope that all would vote neither from fear, from influence, nor from faction, but from an opinion founded on the evidence alone. If they acted steadily on this principle, the world would in the end do them justice. There was the utmost confidence reposed in that high tribunal; but, like all others, they stood before the still higher tribunal of public opinion. If they gave an honest vote, the calm and deliberate result of the solemn inquiry in which they had been engaged, they might confidently look up to that tribunal for its approving judgment. He would appeal to Him who alone knew the secrets of all hearts, and who could alone perhaps unravel all the mysteries of this case, whether his own conclusion was not true; or, if not true, whether it was not founded in integrity, in a disposition to temper justice with mercy, in a desire to inflict no punishment beyond what the necessity of the case required, and in a sense of what was equally due to the Crown and to the country.

The bill was opposed by Lord Erskine, Earl Grosvenor, the Earl of Rosebery, Earl of Harewood, Lords Arden, Falmouth, Ashburton, Howard, Enniskillen, Calthorpe, Grantham, Blessington, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Marquis of Stafford, the Duke of Somerset, and the Earl of Rosslyn. It was supported by the Earl of Lauderdale, Lord Redesdale, the Earl of Donoughmore, Lord Grenville, the Dukes of Atholl and Northumberland. The Earl of Harrowby, though a minister, declared himself not prepared to vote for the divorce clause.

Lord Ellenborough struck out a course peculiar to himself, and which considerably influenced the House. As one of those who had concurred with the secret committee in recommending a solemn inquiry-as one who had agreed that it would be best carried on in a legislative form, and that the mode of proceeding actually adopted was the most convenient-as one, also, who had supported the bill on its first reading, but who now thought it highly inexpedient and detrimental to the public interest that it should proceed any farther-he felt a natural desire to state briefly the grounds of his present opinion. It had been said that no one ought to vote for the bill who did not think the Queen guilty; to which he would beg leave to add, that all who might vote against it did not think the Queen innocent. They had been exhorted to be " just and fear not," a maxim which he would amend by saying, " be politic as well as just." He had understood a noble Lord (Arden) to express a wish, either that the preamble should ⚫ be greatly modified, or that the sense of the House should be expressed in some other way. If any change was to take place in the course which they were pursuing, the time and proper point for it had now arrived. This

was the occasion for considering what would be most conducive to the ends of public justice, and most accordant with public expediency. He certainly had expected that the guilt charged would be proved by evidence so clear, so unsuspicious, so untainted, and so irresistible, that no plain man could refuse to yield it implicit credit. He had expected that it would produce a material change in the opinion of the public, and had thought that the investigation, both in its progress and result, would harmonize with the national feeling. Whether it was necessary for him to state his own impression, on a review of all the evidence, he scarcely knew; but if it were, he must avow that he could not declare the Queen innocent, and he was unwilling to pronounce her guilty. At the same time it appeared to him that in some respects guilt was clearly proved, and that several material allegations had been substantiated. Others were certainly not made out to his satisfaction, and he was unwilling to vote for a bill of this description if it rested at all upon suspicious testimony. His chief reluctance, however, to give any farther support to this measure, arose from the strong and almost universal feeling which existed against it. This feeling, he was aware, sprung out of delusion; and if the whole inquiry should prove abortive, it would be the most disgraceful triumph of falsehood over truth that the world had yet witnessed. He had always looked at this question as one of public morals and national character. The bill was intended to affix a mark of infamy, but what was the probable consequence if it passed? It would be regarded as an act of violence; it would not produce its effect; it would cause a re-action, and bring about a result directly opposite to those views with which alone it could be enter

tained. With these considerations he felt himself impelled by a sense of duty to vote against the second reading of the bill. But whilst he enter tained this opinion, he should think it most inexpedient, he should think it a great desertion of duty on the part of that House, if, after what they had learned of the Queen's conduct, they were to pass over it without censure. The Queen of England was a public character; she exercised high functions; he meant not that she was to advise or act in the administration of public affairs; but that she stood forth in the public view as a model and example of female conduct. All that was required of her was that she should be a correct model and example in this respect; and in this respect it was that the present Queen utterly failed. Every unprejudiced man who had heard the evidence, every man who lived at all in the world, would admit that the Queen was one of the last women whom he would wish his wife to resemble-one of the last whom the father of a family would propose as an example to his daughters. He did not, however, conceive that the bill could become expedient under any modifications. He would rather propose expressing the sense entertained by the House of her Majesty's improper conduct; also a diminution of her dignity, by limiting the allowance for her support. Anxious as he was for the honour of that House-feeling as he did that its power was essentially necessary for preserving the balance of the constitution-considering the peculiar nature of this measure, which imperatively called on them to act in the spirit of justice and sound policy mindful also of the circumstances that might flow from its enactment-looking to all these points, and being strongly actuated by them, he would undoubtedly give his vote against the

second reading of this bill. But he trusted the House would not separate without a very strong expression of their Lordships' feeling and opinion on the subject of the Queen's conduct, founded on the untouched part of the evidence-on that portion of it which was not suspected, and which no man could deny.

On the 7th November the grand division took place, when there appeared for the second reading 123, against it 95; forming a majority of only 28; a smaller one than had been anticipated.

On the following day her Majesty, through her usual channel Lord Dacre, presented the following protest :

"CAROLINE REGINA.

"To the Lords Spiritual and Tempo

ral 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 them"selves 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 ex

« AnteriorContinua »