have been adopted by the government, would have come from the same quarter, though perhaps in a form somewhat different. They, who, when the Queen was recommended to them by being the object of a prosecution, had seized her arm to shake the throne, would have turned their venomous tongues against her, if she had been tranquilly admitted into the full enjoyment of regal splendor.. They would have propagated and circulated every degrading insinuation, and would have asked, what respect was due to a throne, a throne, which could be so filled. Nothing less than the triumph of complete and unequivocal innocence would satisfy her majesty; and how could ministers allow her that triumph, convinced as they were that she was a guilty woman? Having shown by these reasonings, the necessity of taking some proceedings against her majesty, Mr. Peel then endeavoured to prove, by the same arguments as were employed in the House of Lords when the matter was before them, and which will be found in our former volume, that a bill of Pains and Penalties was the least objectionable course which could have been adopted. The debate on the second night was much more animated. Sir Robert Wilson, besides dilating on all the common-places of the question, produced a number of certificates from persons of rank and consideration in Italy, who declared, that they had seen no indecorum in the Queen's conduct; and Mr. H. G. Bennett said again what he had said twenty times before. Sir Francis Burdett took his ground with much skill. He stood up, not so much to eulogize the Queen, as to deprecate the mode in which she had been attacked, and, without endeavouring to prove her innocent, thought it enough if he could show, that no guilt had been established against her. He contended, that the policy which ministers had pursued with respect to her, was, from the beginning to the end, equally to be deplored. If they wished her to have staid abroad, they ought undoubtedly to have made it possible for her to do so; they ought not to have followed her with indignities and insults, which compelled her to return. The difficulties, which arose after her return, were all of their own creation; for had they but abstained from injuring and insulting her, she would have been an object of comparatively little notice. Her palace could have been filled only by disinterested courtiers, by the few who were to be found in castra ubi nulla potentia, and in a short time she would probably have been happy to have again gone abroad. Even if a prosecution was to be instituted against her, still as her alleged offence did not amount to high treason, as there was no intention of aiming at her life, and as the sole object was to show that she was unfit for her high station, this purpose might have been fully answered by a proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts. A single fact would then have been sufficient, and all that exposition of evidence which, if it had not produced immorality, had excited universal disgust, might have been avoided. The charges were of such a nature, that they ought never to have been uttered, unless there was a certainty of supporting them by real or pretended state necessity the most unexceptionable testi- that, under such circumstances, mony. But many accusations it did not become a public officer were made, and received from to betray an eagerness to convict, the Attorney-general's opening but rather, under the dictation of speech the greatest publicity, gentleman-like feelings to show a which it was not afterwards at spirit of indulgence, and to extetempted to establish by any evi- nuate instead of exaggerating a dence. That speech had, he supposed offence. There was no must confess, filled him with as- need for going into a long nautonishment. On no occasion, and seous detail: had one single maleast of all on this, could he terial fact been proved, the rest have expected, that a public might have been spared, and officer would act the disgraceful ought to have been spared, in a part of collecting the rhetoric of prosecution avowedly instituted the lowest brothels, and after- pro bono publico. But how was wards pour it forth with un- this impropriety aggravated, when, bounded license in the ears of a to the details of statement, were disgusted audience. Unrestrained added the details of testimony. by any consideration of the All this diversified calumny was Queen's exalted rank, or by any thrown into circulation, and recollection of her misfortunes, never, perhaps, had there been he had endeavoured by a state- so many steps taken to preposment of seeming facts, and spe- sess the public mind, and induce cious and highly-coloured de- it to prejudge a question. scriptions, to excite prejudice and odium against her, and then, proh pudor, called no evidence to support the most infamous parts of his accusation. The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken, as if the Spirit of Evil dwelt in his bosom, and possessed his tongue; for who but the author of all malice,-who, with the feelings of a gentleman, or a man in his heart. -Sir Francis, being here interrupted by cries of order, explained his meaning to be, that, if charges of a heinous nature were preferred by a public officer against an exalted person, and that person a lady a lady too so unfortunate, that her offences, if she had committed any, ought to find compassion, if not excuse -where the case was such, that no one appeared as a complaining party, and where the sole ground of the prosecution was a VOL. LXIII. In reply, the Attorney-general affirmed, that, in his opening speech in the House of Lords, he had stated nothing, which, from the depositions put into his hands, he did not expect to substantiate. Did the hon. baronet think, that he had himself examined the witnesses to know what they could depose to? He had never, from the commencement of the proceedings to their close, communicated with a single witness, and was bound to take their depositions from those who had examined them. It was well known, that there was nothing which a counsel avoided more, especially in criminal cases, than previous communication with the witnesses whom he was to examine in open court. He had so acted in this case. He had read the evidence he believed that it was faithfully taken from the [C] mouths of the witnesses-he believed it, and thought that it proved his case. Mr. Tierney entered into the question at large. In the early part of the former session, he had declared, in his place in parliament, that either the Queen was insulted, or the king betrayed, and that he would not vote a shilling for the support of her majesty, till her character was cleared up. The ministers had frequently pressed the Opposition with this declaration of their chief, as a proof that investigation was absolutely necessary; and Mr. Tierney therefore found it expedient to try to explain away the obvious meaning of his words. At the time, he observed, when he expressed that opinion, her majesty's name had been expunged from the Liturgy; and that exclusion in itself constituted a charge which demanded investigation. Besides, reports had been spread abroad, and industriously imported into this country, the origin of which it was necessary to inquire into. He said so then, and he was of the same opinion still. He then believed, that there existed irresistible evidence of her majesty's guilt; because he could not conceive it possible, that, without such irresistible evidence, the ministers of the crown could have proceeded to strike her majesty's name out of the Liturgy. With this impression, he believed that charges were to be openly brought forward; and he thought it due to the House, to the interests of the country, and to the honour of the king, that the inquiry should take place before the grant of money was made. If he had fallen into any error, it was that of having placed too much confidence in the ministers. He had supposed, that they would not have ventured to expunge the Queen's name from the Liturgy, if they had not had credible evidence of her guilt. They had however no such evidence. Without having had one single point, upon which they could firmly rely-without having sifted the evidence of one single witness— upon the mere depositions of a parcel of discarded servants, chambermaids, and vagabonds of every description-without having investigated the character of any one individual, the case was committed into the hands of the Attorney-general; and all that the House heard him now say was, "If all that I had stated in opening had been proved in evidence, no doubt could have remained of the Queen's being guilty." The Attorney-General, in the discharge of his duty, could do no less than he had done; but he (Mr. Tierney) charged it against the king's ministers, as a high offence, which required not merely censure, but impeachment, that they should have brought forward such accusations against her majesty on the evidence of such characters as he had described, without examining one respectable person to throw any light upon them. He had attended on the trial every day during the time that the evidence for the prosecution was under examination, and a more disgusting and disgraceful scene he had never witnessed. He could perceive, from the painful situation of the learned gentlemen who conducted it, that they evidently distrusted their own witnesses; that they were aware, at every step they took, that they had no ground to stand on; and that they went on with witness after witness, fishing for any ground of charge that might turn up. This was no offence in them; but it was a most heinous one in the king's ministers. Mr. Tierney then contended, that the mode of procedure by a bill of Pains and Penalties, was oppressive and unjust, and that the abandonment of the prosecu tion, after it had been once instituted, was no less blameable than its original commencement. If, indeed, he were asked what would appear the most degrading point in the late proceedings to those who should read of them in history, he would answer that it was that ministers had not passed the bill. They had said to the House of Commons, who were expecting that it would come down to them, "You gen tlemen have nothing to do with this bill; a moral conviction of her majesty's guilt has been created in another place; and to prevent your meddling with it, we are determined that it shall not pass." He was surprised that the highest legal authority in the kingdom, the lord chancellor, the great guardian of its laws, and the grand depository of its justice, should have concurred, without any apparent reluctance, in that determination. Had he put any protest against it upon record? No: the bill was abandoned without any dissent being expressed by him, or indeed by any members of the other House, with the exception of about ten peers, who, by entering their protest against its abandonment, did themselves as much honour, as those, who had neglected to do so, had done themselves disgrace. The advocates for the bill asked of their opponents, whether it was fitting, that a Queen to whom treason and adultery was imputed, should be allowed to sit on the throne of England. What, however, had been the result of the late proceeding? Why, that her majesty had not merely had adultery imputed, but, if the ministers of the crown were to be believed, actually proved against her; so that they had now placed upon the throne, not merely imputed guilt, but guilt of which they had in their own minds moral conviction: and the House was thrown into such a situation that it was obliged afterwards to proceed to vote 50,000. of the public money for her support and maintenance? Her majesty, however, with a spirit worthy of her rank and station, said, that she would not touch a farthing of what had been voted her, until the House cleared her character from all unfounded aspersions; so that, if it had not been for her conduct, which on this point deserved the highest praise, the people of England would have been reduced by ministers to the necessity of paying the same honours to a Queen whom they could not respect, as they would bestow on one who was the object of their esteem and admiration. The most interesting speech in this important debate, was that of Lord Castlereagh: for instead of dwelling on general topics, he went into the particular circumstances of the principal transactions, and unfolded the mysterious course which Mr. His Brougham had followed. lordship's statement on the latter topic, was to the following effect: In the month of June, 1819, a communication had been received by his majesty's government from the hon. and learned gentleman, who was known to be the professional adviser of her majesty, and understood to be charged with the confidential management of her affairs in this country. The proposal contained in this communication was, that her majesty (at that time princess of Wales) should be secured in her then income of 35,000l. a year for her own life, instead of its terminating with the demise of the Crown; and that she should undertake, upon that arrangement being made, to continue permanently to reside abroad, not assuming at any time the rank, style, or title of Queen of this country. As this proposal was stated to be made without any authority or knowledge on the part of the princess of Wales; and as it could not be carried into effect without the aid of parliament; the only answer given on the part of his majesty's government was, that there would be no indisposition, at the proper time, to entertain the principle on which the proposal was grounded, if it should turn out that it met with the approbation and concurrence of the princess. Of course, it rested with the party making the proposal, to ascertain this point before any further step could be taken by his majesty's government. Upon the demise of his late majesty, an alteration in the Liturgy became necessary. It was not till some days after that alteration had been made, that the communication was renewed between the hon. and learned gentleman and his majesty's government. In that renewed communication, no intimation was given by the hon. and learned gentleman that, in his judgment, though of course he could not take upon himself to answer for the Queen, the change in her majesty's situation, by the demise of the late king, was likely to create any material obstacle to the completion of an amicable arrangement founded on the basis of his original proposal-and in respect to the Liturgy in particular, he stated, that, by the manner of arranging the new form of prayer omitting the name of the heir presumptive, as well as that of the Queen-it seemed to him, that any unfavourable inference against her majesty, which must have arisen, if the name of the duke of York had been inserted, and that of the Queen omitted, was happily obviated. With this knowledge of the hon. and learned gentleman's sentiments; and with the implied, and indeed avowed readiness on his part, to submit to her majesty a proposal, formed on this basis, and to offer his advice to her majesty in favour of her acceptance of it; the substance of it was reduced into writing, and put into his hands on the 15th of April, 1820, to be by him communicated and recommended to her majesty. In saying that the memorandum of the 15th of April contained the substance of the honourable and learned gentleman's suggestion, it ought to be observed, that the only essential difference was this that, instead of 35,000l. a year, an annual allowance of 50,000l. was proposed. This most im |