"to concentrate and condense all the threatening "clouds which were prepared to burst upon her

66

66

ill-fated head and, as if it were utterly im"possible that the Queen could lose a single protector without the loss being instantaneously "followed by the commencement of some important step against her, the same day which saw the remains of her venerable Sovereign "entombed-of that beloved Sovereign who was "from the outset, her constant father and friend, “that same sun which shone upon the Monarch's "tomb, ushered into the palace of his illustrious

66

son and successor, one of the perjured wit"nesses, who was brought over to depose against "her Majesty's life."

Nor should the following bold, yet correct and, indeed, inimitable peroration to this incomparable speech be omitted.

"Such, my Lords," said Mr. Brougham, “is "the case now before you, and such is the evi"dence by which it is attempted to be upheld. "It is evidence-inadequate, to prove any propo

sition; impotent, to deprive the lowest subject "of any civil right; ridiculous, to establish the "least offence; scandalous, to support a charge "of the highest nature; monstrous, to ruin the

honour of the Queen of England. What shall "I say of it, then, as evidence to support a judicial act of legislature, an ex-post facto law? My Lords, I call upon you to pause. You "stand on the brink of a precipice. If your

66

66

judgment shall

go out against your Queen, it

"will be the only act that ever went out without effecting its purpose; it will return to you

66

66

upon your own heads. Save the country"save yourselves. Rescue the country; save "the people, of whom you are the ornaments; "but, severed from whom, you can no more live "than the blossom that is severed from the root "and tree on which it grows. Save the country,

therefore, that you may continue to adorn it"save the crown, which is threatened with irreparable injury-save the aristocracy, which is

66

66

surrounded with danger-save the altar, which "is no longer safe when its kindred throne is "shaken. You see that when the church and "the throne would allow of no church solemnity "in behalf of the Queen, the heart-felt prayers "of the people rose to Heaven for her protection. "I pray Heaven for her; and I here pour forth my fervent supplications at the throne of mercy, "that mercies may descend on the people of this

66

66

country, richer than their rulers have deserved, " and that your hearts may be turned to justice."

Mr. Williams, followed on the same side, and with great ability presented a digest of a considerable portion of the case for the prosecution, and of the inadequacy of the testimony to support the charge. At the conclusion of his speech, the examination of witnesses on behalf of her Majesty commenced, and continued for many days. The substance of such evidence will be hereafter presented in the Analysis, and to which great attention should be paid.

On the 23rd of October, an application of a

nature as singular as it was novel, was made by the Attorney General for the King. During the progress of the cause, it had been proved on oath, that some of the Agents of the Milan Commission, had not been very scrupulous in the means which they had adopted to procure evidence, and Colonel Browne, as one of the Commissioners, had been charged with gross misconduct. In consequence of such allegations, the Attorney General now applied that the proceedings might be delayed, to enable him to obtain the attendance of Colonel Browne, from Milan, to refute such charges. It is scarcely necessary to add, that this request was not complied with. Had it been granted, the proceedings might on the same principle have extended to a period of fifty years. Mr. Brougham might have obtained a similar delay to rebut Colonel Browne's evidence; new charges would have arisen, and new delays been required, to an indefinite period.

On the 24th of October, terminated the examination of the witnesses for the Queen, and Mr. Denman in a speech of transcendant eloquence and great ability, recapitulated the insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution, and retraced the nature of the counteracting testimony given for the Queen.

On the conclusion of that speech, Dr. Lushington addressed their Lordships. Possessing considerable knowledge in ecclesiastical law, his observations on the question of divorce, were interesting and important, and his statement, that no instance before the present was to be found,

where a husband sought to divorce his wife, by accusing her of adultery, at the age of fifty, is deserving of attention. Thus closed the labours of her Majesty's Advocates. Her Attorney, Mr. Vizard, manifested great zeal, wisdom, and prudence; and all her Counsel, not forgetting Mr. WILDE, whose efforts in the cross-examinations, and examination of witnesses, were eminently successful, manifested that legal and gradual knowledge which the case eminently required, and which obtained for them the respect of all classes of the community.

On the 27th, the Attorney General, for the King, commenced his reply; who having paused for the purpose of obtaining a short interval of rest, Mr. Brougham appeared at the bar, and stated that he had a few minutes since, received some very important letters, signed "d'Ompteda, Mi"nister of Hanover," by which it appeared, that Baron d'Ompteda had attempted to seduce her Majesty's servants, through the medium of letters from Demont to her relative Mariette Demont. Mr. Brougham was informed that this was not the proper time to offer such evidence. These documents were not, therefore, presented to the House. The Attorney General terminated his address on the following day.

The Solicitor General, on the 28th, addressed their Lordships, in an appropriate speech, which he terminated on Monday the 30th of October.

Mr. Brougham again pressed the reception of Baron d' Ompteda's letters. By them it appear

ed, that through the medium of a Police Agent, d' Ompteda had carried on a correspondence between Demont and her sister, after Demont was in the hands of the Milan Commission.

The House, however, finally decided on not receiving these letters.

The Lord Chancellor then proceeded to remark on the evidence, and the speeches of the Peers extended to the 6th of November, when the House divided on the second reading of the Bill.

That the names of those Lords who voted for, or against the second reading of this Bill may be accurately preserved, a List is subjoined.

FOR THE SECOND READING.

Lords Prudhoe, Harris, Ross, Meldrum, Hill, Combermere, Hopetoun, Gambier, Manners, Ailsa, Lauderdale, Sheffield, Redesdale, St. Helens, Northwick, Bolton, Bayning, Carrington, Dunstanville, Rous, Courtown, Galloway, Stuart, Douglas, Grenville, Suffield, Montagu, Gordon, Somers, Rodney, Middleton, Napier, Colville, Gray, Saltoun, Forbes. Bishops Cork, Landaff, Peterborough, Gloucester, Chester, Ely, St. Asaph, St. David's, Worcester, London.

Viscounts Exmouth, Lake, Sidmouth, Melville, Curzon, Sydney, Falmouth, Hereford.