This bill having been read a first time, Lord Liverpool's motion that copies be sent to the Queen, the Queen's Attorney-general, and the King's Attorney-general, was agreed to. On the renewed motion of Lord Dacre, for calling in her Majesty's counsel, the Earl of Liverpool promised that, should a petition be presented the next day, the bill being then in progress, he would not object to it.

This bill was fixed to be read for the second time, on the 17th August, and the following regulations respecting the attendance of the peers were made:

"That the House should be called over on Thursday the 17th August, at ten o'clock in the morning.

"That the call should be enforced by the authority of their Lordships.

"That no Peer should be absent on that day, nor any subsequent one during the proceedings, without leave from their Lordships.

"That no Peer should vote by proxy.

"That the Lord Chancellor should write letters to their Lordships, requiring their attendance in the manner above stated."

On the 17th August, at twenty-five minutes to nine o'clock, the Lord Chancellor arrived at the House, and took his seat on the woolsack. The question for counsel to be called in, was soon put and carried. Mr. Brougham, (her Majesty's Attorney-general,) Mr. Denman, (her Solicitor-general,) Dr. Lushington and Messrs. Tindal and Wild, as counsel, and Mr. Vizard, as solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Queen. Mr. Gifford, (his Majesty's Attorney-general,) Sir John Copley, (his Solicitor-general,) Dr. Adam, and Mr. Park, as counsel, with Mr. Powel, as solicitor, attended on the part of the prosecution.

Preliminary discussions occupied the two first days. On the 19th, the Attorney-general, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, proceeded to open his case. It is by no means our intention to enter into a particular detail of events, which must be yet so fresh in the recollection of the public.

The witnesses for the prosecution, exclusive of interpreters, and others examined merely to verify documents, were twentyfive in number. We subjoin a list of their names and occupations:

Theodore Majocchi, courier; Gaetano Paturzo, owner of a polacre; Vicenza Garguilo, master of a polacre. Francisco, cook; Captains Pechell and Briggs; Barbara Krantz; Pretro Puchi, waiter at the Grand Hotel at Trieste; Guiseppe Bianchi, door-keeper of the Grand Bretagne Inn, Venice; Paolo Ragazzoni, mason at the Villa d'Este; Gerolamo Mejani, superintendant of the gardens of the Princess of Wales; Paolo Oggioni, undercook to the Princess; Louisa Dumont, femme de chambre to the Princess; Luigi Galdini, mason at the Villa d'Este; Allesandro Finetti, ornamental painter at the Villa d'Este; Domenico Brusa, mason at the Villa d'Este; Antonio Bianchi, inhabitant of Como; Giovanni Lucini, whitewasher at Villa d'Este; Carlo Rancatti, confectioner to the Princess; Francesco Cassina, mason at the Villa d'Este; Guiseppe Rastelli, superintendant to the stables of the Princess; Guiseppe Galli, waiter at the Crown Inn, Barlisina; Guiseppe Del Orto, baker to the Princess; Guiseppe Gugiari, boatman on the Lake of Como; Guiseppe Sacchi, equerry and

courier.

On the 21st, the Attorney-general concluded his statement of the charges against the Queen. Interpreters were sworn in on either side; and the first witness, Theodore Majocchi, was called to the bar of the House to give in his evidence. Her Majesty entered the House during the examination of this witness, and, on seeing him, shrieked aloud, and retired somewhat precipitately, declaring she could not bear to look upon a person who had been guilty of such base ingratitude.

On September 7th, the deposition of the witnesses for the prosecution having been all given in, the Solicitor-general summed up the case for the bill.

On September the 9th, it was finally ordered, that three

weeks should be allowed to the counsel for the Queen, to prepare her defence. The House adjourned to Tuesday the 3d of October, when Mr. Brougham opened the defence with a long and eloquent address. On the 5th October, the examination of the witnesses for the defence commenced. They were as follows: James Leman, clerk to her Majesty's solicitor; Colonel Butler St. Leger, the Earl of Guilford, Lord Glenbervie, Lady Charlotte Lindsay, Lord Landoff, Honourable Keppel Craven, Sir William Gell, Sicard, her MajorDomo; Dr. Holland, Charles Mills, Esq., Colonel Theolini, Carlo Forti, Lieutenant Flynn, William Carrington, Lieutenant Hownam, Granville Sharpe, Santeno Lugiani, Guiseppo Carolini, Phillippo Pomoni, Pompilio Pomati, Antonio Maoini, Rumarigo Salvadovi, Colonel Oliviere Tomaso, and Carlo Vassali.

On Monday, November 6, the defence of the Queen ended, having occupied forty-nine days. The second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of twenty-eight votes; and on November 10, the third reading of it was carried by a majority of nine votes.

We must here, in common justice, explain the ruse de guerre (whether justifiable or not, it is not for us to decide) by which the list of the minority was on the third reading so materially swelled.

After the second reading, the bill went into a committee of the whole House. As several peers and bishops, from religious scruples, had given their votes for the second reading of the bill, upon the express understanding, that when the bill went into a committee, the divorce clause would be excluded, which would leave only the degradation of her Majesty from the rank of Queen, and being considered as the first female in the United Kingdoms, ministers, with the view of meeting the wishes of those peers, expressed a desire to exclude the divorce clause, in which they were not supported by many of the peers who had voted for the second reading. The opposition took advantage of the difference of opinion in those peers who voted for the second reading, and in direct con

tradiction to their previously expressed opinions, urged the propriety of retaining the divorce clause in the bill, in the full expectation, that on the third reading of the bill, the majority would be so reduced in consequence of the religious scruples of a certain number of peers and bishops, who would vote against it, that government would be obliged to abandon the bill; and in the event of its being sent down to the House of Commons, it would be thrown out upon the same religious scruples as that of inexpediency.

On the 9th November a division took place on the exclusion of the divorce clause, when, in consequence of the Queen's friends voting for its retention, the motion was negatived by a majority of sixty-seven votes, thereby placing government in the minority. The consequence of this stratagem was, that on the 10th November, the fifty-third day of trial, when the bill was read for the third time, government lost the support of the twelve peers and bishops who had stated their objections to the divorce clause.

On the motion of Lord Liverpool, however, the question of the passing of the bill was ordered to be put on that day six months.

Against the abandonment of the bill, formal protests were entered into by various noblemen.

During the trial, her Majesty had several times visited the House of Lords, on all of which occasions she was received by the mob with the loudest demonstrations of applause. The news of her release from the bill of pains and penalties was welcomed with tumultuous approbation without the walls of the House; and partial illuminations throughout London, testified the zeal and enthusiasm of her partizans. In many instances, however, this apparent manifestation of respect was by no means voluntary; but for the first two or three nights after the abandonment of the bill, numerous bands of riotous and misguided persons pervaded the streets, for the purpose of demolishing the windows of those who were most obstinate in their refusal to illuminate. At length the ferment subsided, and order was once more restored.

. Numerous addresses of congratulation were poured in upon her Majesty from all parts of the kingdom. Most of the public Companies visited the Queen in procession, carrying with them their respective addresses of congratulations. The answers to these ebullitions of attachment too often partook of the decided, and, not seldom, libellous character of the documents themselves. These were, of course, not written by her Majesty, but by some person in her employ. Their violence was such as to elicit the disapprobation even of those decidedly hostile to the measures of Government.

Early in the month of May last, it was generally believed that the immediate coronation of his Majesty had been determined on, and the Queen joining in this belief, although no official announcement had been made to that effect, wrote a letter to the Earl of Liverpool on the 5th, demanding to be present at the ceremony. To this she received a reply, apprising her," that his Majesty having determined that the Queen should form no part of the ceremonial of his coronation, it was his royal pleasure that the Queen should not attend the said ceremony."

On the 9th of June the report of the renewed intention of his Majesty to be crowned, was confirmed by the issue of a second proclamation, appointing Thursday, the 19th of July, for the performance of the ceremony; and, on the same day, another proclamation was issued, appointing the Court of Claims, which again assembled, heard, and determined all the petitions and claims which had not been previously decided.

Her Majesty transmitted three memorials to the King, asserting her legal right to participate in the honours of the coronation, and praying that the necessary arrangements for that purpose should be taken, and communicated to her Majesty. They were all referred by the King to the Privy Council, who assembled at the Cockpit, Whitehall, to hear counsel in support of her Majesty's claim to be crowned.

The Council Chamber was greatly crowded. Among the