perienced 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."

A considerable discussion arose whether this protest did not so far reflect on the dignity of the House, as to render it unfit to be received. The Chancellor, however, at last moved, "That this House, notwithstanding the exceptionable matter in some parts of the paper now presented, does nevertheless, under all the circumstances of the case, consent to receive the same as the representation of what her Majesty has further to state to the House in the present stage of these proceedings."-The motion was car

ried.

The House now resolved itself into a committee, for the purpose of considering the particular clauses of the bill. The alterations made upon it were merely formal and verbal, till the divorce clause came under consideration. The Archbishop of York came forward with a decided objection to this clause. He knew not where any mention was made in the word of God of a religious expediency that could justify this measure; and, regarding marriage as a sacred and solemn ordinance of religion, he must look on the word of God, and on that only, as the guide of his conduct on such an occasion. He could not, therefore, consent to retain the divorce clause; and yet if it were not retained, and the other provisions of the bill remained in force, they would exhibit the extraordinary, he might almost say, the monstrous spectacle of a degraded Queen continuing to be the consort of the Sovereign. He saw no possible way of extricating himself

from this dilemma but by opposing the bill altogether. In voting yesterday against the second reading, this was the difficulty that influenced his decision. It was not that he felt any hesitation in making up his mind as to the evidence, but he felt himself justified as a legislator, and under all the circumstances of the case, in saying "Not content;" conscious, at the same time, that had he been called on to decide in a purely judicial character, he would have said "Guilty." He conceived, however, it would have been much better for the interests of religion and morality, if the bill had never been introduced.

The Bishop of Chester had voted for the second reading, only on the understanding that the divorce clause was not to make part of the bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the contrary, defended divorce on scriptural grounds; and being convinced that the charge was proved, could see no objection to the bill standing in its present form. The Bishop of London held the same opinion. The King, he conceived by the Constitution, could do no wrong; he could not commit folly, much less crime. There was therefore no room for recrimination. The divorce was passed as a penalty of crime, not as a personal relief to any party concerned. He could see therefore no bar to it.

The Earl of Lauderdale could not agree with the Right Rev. Prelate, that there could be one law of divorce for the King and another for the subject. Although, therefore, he believed the Queen to be guilty, and was ready to concur in depriving her of her public station, he could not help objecting to the clause of divorce.

The Earl of Darnley would say, (and he should say it with much satisfaction,) that it did appear to him that their lordships could neither pass the bill with the divorce clause,

nor without it. They could not degrade, unless they could divorce her. Could the wife of the King be any other than the Queen? He had heard much, it was true, of the omnipotence of an Act of Parliament; but he did not suppose it had the power of altering the nature of things.

The Earl of Donoughmore expressed surprise at the opinion of his friend the Earl of Lauderdale. In this case the King was prosecutor only as the head of the state; he had not appeared in his individual or personal capacity, and from hence he went on to infer the total absence of any analogy between the present measure and ordinary divorce laws. He deprecated the little respect and regard which had been manifested for the feelings of that illustrious individual (his Majesty) in the course of this proceeding. It was agreed that her Majesty was unfit to be Queen; but, said certain noble Lords, "Let her remain Queen -tie her still to his Majesty,-we will give him no hope."

The Earl of Harrowby thought, that under the present circumstances, and after the long and recognized separation which had already taken place, there was no propriety in the clause of divorce.

The Earl of Liverpool had never considered divorce as the object of the bill: and though he himself did not feel the force of the objections to it, he had always declared his readiness to concur in its omission, if felt as revolting to the religious feeling of any part of the House. It was said, that in this case the House could not degrade the Queen without following the degradation up by a clause of divorce; and that if the latter were not adopted, the measure would be a bill of degradation against the King, instead of the Queen. Now, he could not at all concur in this opinion.Suppose for a moment that the case

were of a Queen who had committed the crime of felony, one of the highest known to the law, would anybody say that that were not enough to justify her degradation from her rights and prerogatives as Queen? Would not that justify a measure of separation, though for it no divorce could be inflicted. With respect to the high station of the parties, it had the disadvantage of exposing one of them to the effect of widely circulated calumnies, which he could not consistently with the dignity of his station publicly refute. And with respect to these calumnies, he must say, without meaning to bear hard upon the Queen, that it was highly improper for those who could not know the whole of what might have occurred between the parties, to pronounce in a harsh and calumnious manner upon one side of the question between them.

The Chancellor felt many doubts and difficulties on the subject. In conclusion, he stated that no man had ever been guilty of more cruelty and injustice than he had been, in acting upon the evidence in divorce clauses, if the testimony now upon the table were not sufficient to support the clause under consideration. It was his anxious wish, that each of the noble Lords, as yesterday, should explain his opinion, whether this clause ought or ought not to stand, with a notice of the grounds on which that opinion rested. As for himself, he wished to reserve his judgment until he had obtained all the light upon the subject that could be procured.

The leading opposition Peers, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord King, Earl Grey, the Earl of Carnarvon, and Lord Holland, now came forward, and gave their decided support to the divorce clause, enlarging upon all the inconsistencies and absurdities which would arise from its omission. Although this course bore an aspect un

friendly to the Queen, it was, in fact, a highly politic measure, with a view to her interest. As it appeared that many Lords had voted for the second reading of the bill, only under the understanding, and on the condition, that this clause was to be omitted, the retention of it insured a diminution of the number who would vote for the third reading. Earl Grey openly avowed this as the only ground upon which he could have given his vote, for a clause, of which, as of the whole bill, he entirely disapproved. Lord King, on this occasion, made some sallies which amused the House. There had been a confusion of opinions amongst the Ministers-there had been a confusion of opinions amongst the lawyers-and a confusion of opinions amongst the learned Prelates. He was extremely sorry that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had not derived from those to whom he had looked with such confidence, information of a more convincing and enlightened character. But if he had not received instruction from the Reverend Prelates, he could derive consolation from them; for among them, as among Lawyers, there appeared difficulty and doubt. Adverting to the injustice of being biassed by reports, he could not deny, that there were some which had considerable influence upon his mind. At the period to which he had alluded, it was said that the Queen had been guilty of the greatest indecencies, not with Bergami, but with other persons; that her Majesty, at Blackheath, had been guilty of indecorum with Lord Liverpool!-and that she had played at blindman's-buff with the Chancellor of the Exchequer! He could not refer to the exact period at which those extraordinary and indecent proceedings took place

The Earl of Liverpool.-" They never took place !”—

Lord King." I cannot, I assure

your lordships, refer to the exact time, but it must have been, I think, when the noble Earl was out of place, and looking for means to get into office, before the Regency!"

The Earl of Liverpool.-" Never, upon my honour !"—

Lord King said, it was then an instance to the noble Earl of the infidelity of reports.

Lord Redesdale supported the divorce clause. The Chancellor finally declared, that his own opinion was in its favour, but that he was willing to yield to the religious scruples of others, and was disposed to go along with his friend Lord Liverpool.

In consequence of the junction between the Queen's friends, and the most decided among her adversaries, the divorce clause was carried by the large majority of 67, (129 to 62). It was a remarkable circumstance to see nine Cabinet Ministers in this limited minority.

On the following day, (November 10) the discussion on the clauses continued. The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that a highly distinguished nobleman (Earl Grey) had openly declared that his view in voting for the divorce clause was solely to put an entire stop to it. He asked whether the noble Lords who differed from him in opinion would aid this trick and manoeuvre by voting against the third reading. Earl Grey rose with great warmth, and repelled the imputation as unjust, unfounded, and calumnious. He must say, that to be accused of tricking and manoeuvring in his conduct, when he openly avowed the motive and the object of that conduct, appeared to him the most extraordinary and unauthorized charge ever made in that house. He repelled with indignation and disdain-and he was almost inclined to use a much harsher word—the imputation that, for any earthly object, he would consent to practise tricks and

manœuvres ; and he appealed to their Lordships, whether his intention, with respect to his vote, had not been openly and candidly avowed. Nothing was more justifiable or more common in Parliamentary practice, than for a member who strongly disapproved of any measure, to endeavour to clog it with conditions which would procure its rejection. He boped that those noble Lords who had given a pledge that they would not vote for the bill with the divorce clause, would now redeem that pledge, and get rid of the bill altogether.Lord Lauderdale explained that he did not mean to use the words trick

and manœuvre in any reproachful or unparliamentary sense.

Some trifling modifications in the terms of the bill were then discussed, and the House adjourned till the following day.

Next day (11th November) a good deal of desultory conversation took place, but without the possibility of bringing forth any thing new on so beaten a subject. The vote at length being loudly called for, the numbers appeared

Bishop Ely

London

Lake

Melville

Curzon

For the third reading, Against it,

108

99

Orford

St Helens Northwicke

Bolton

Carrington

De Dunstanville

Rous

Saltersford (Courtown)

Shaftesbury

Cardigan

Stewart (Galloway)

Stewart (Moray)

Rosse

Douglas (Morton)

Nelson

Grenville

Powis

Camden

Northampton

Exeter
Headfort
Cornwallis

Buckingham

Lothian

Gordon (Huntley)

Queensberry

Somers

Duke Wellington

Northumberland

Immediately after the vote, Lord Dacre put in a petition from the Queen, praying to be heard by counsel against the passing of the bill. The Earl of Liverpool rose immediately, and said that he apprehended such a course would be rendered unnecessary by what he was about to state. He could not be ignorant of the state of public feeling with regard to this measure, and it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the bill should be read a third time only by a majority of 9 votes. Had the third reading been carried by as consider

able a number of Peers as the second, he and his noble 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 farther with it. It was his intention, accordingly, to move that the question do pass that the bill be put on this day six months.

Earl Grey entered into a vehement