« PreviousContinue »
this took place. The most infamous of men-the most atrocious of monsters was employed by Nero, to murder his own mother Agrippa, and I believe that this Nero, to get rid of his wife Octavia, told her you must confess that you have had an adulterous intercourse with your slave, and you shall undergo nominal punishment, but you shall be pardoned.' Reluctantly the confession was made; the confession was taken for proof, she was seized-her veins opened-the blood did not flow sufficiently quick-she was drowned in hot water, and her head was sent to Nero to glut his cruelty. My lords, that is the conduct of Nero and his myrmidons.. They were acting together in this foul and infamous transaction. What are we to say then when counsel like my learned friend, entertaining the best possible feelings on all other occasions, feels himself justified, in a Court of Justice, in saying that the case of Octavia bears a resemblance to the case before your Lordship -nay, not only bears a resemblance, but that it is the only case that can be presented in ancient or modern times, that can be put in any competition with such a transaction! I confess, when I heard this, my blood was paralized with horror. Í hardly understood where I was, or from whom it was this extraordinary language proceeded. But, my lords, what is still more extraordinary, my learned friend has not the credit of novelty in this comparison. No, it is not his own, for I find in a newspaper which I hold in my hand an advertisement published some time before the speech of my learned friend, couched in these terms:- Nero Vindicated!" Published by whom? By a rame well known, an individual of whom I know nothing, but from those publications which are ushered into the world.
Printed for Wm. Hone, Ludgate-hili! Now, my learned friend condescends to make himself the instrument to such a person as I have described, to prefer such charges in this high and august assembly against the monarch of his country!"
In the first place I will admit that the atrocities of George the Fourth are not so open as the atrocities of Nero. The latter had a contempt for all mankind, and cared not what the world thought of him. He had no ministers that made themselves responsible for his acts, and consequently consulted him about his general conduct. He did every thing by his own inclination and the word of his own mouth, and those who disobeyed his commands whilst in authority, would have made that disobedience to the loss of their own life. In England the case is different, but the disposition of the modern Nero by no means differs. His ministers have the power to check his
dispositions by a refusal to put them in force, and all the retaliation he can make is to dismiss them from office, and even then he would find himself at a greater distance from his object, because it is not probable that he could replace a more abandoned set of men. The only difference between the Nero of old and the modern Nero, is that the former had all his vices centered in himself, but the latter has a whole host of subordinate Neros to execute his will. The vices of the Roman Nero were centered in a focus and made a glaring display, but the vices of the English Nero travel through a variety of secret channels and are not exposed to public view further than can be avoided. This alone makes the distinction. The modern Nero is equally cruel, as equally base with the Nero of old, he differs only in the display of that cruelty and baseness. It has not yet been shewn that the Nero of old spilt any blood by his own hand, he gave the command, and it was done by others; can so much be said for the modern Nero? Is the report true or false that the groom was killed by a pitch-fork at Brighton? I verily believe that if the head of Caroline couid be sent to the modern Nero he would receive the present with as much joy as the Nero of old received the head of Octavia. The vices of Henry the Eighth were not half' so bad, taking all his conduct towards all his wives, as is the conduct of George the Fourth towards Queen Caroline. Personally, he never ill-used one of them, neither is it known that he ever deserted the bed of one of them for any other woman during the time that they were considered his lawful wives. Again, I say that Nero is the only parallel for George the Fourth, the shades of difference are solely attributable to time and place. The myrmidons of the modern Nero are as foul as were the myrmidons of the Nero of old, the difference in the outward appearance is only this, and makes the character of the former worse than the latter, for those were compelled to act, but the former act from choice and the sake of their share in the public plunder. Nero of old set fire to Rome and then put to death the Christians for it, the modern Neros create insurrections by their agency and spies, and then put to death the reformers for it. Nero beheaded all the leaders of the Christian sect, the modern Nero's have done the same with the most conspicuous reformers, at least some are beheaded and some are cast into prison. There is an exact parallel in the disposition of the modern Nero and his agents and the Nero of old and his agents. If I had time for reflection, I would state an hundred instances, where the parallel is
as close as it is possible for two different persons, times, and places to be. There is one advantage we have now, and that is, that Queen Caroline has more spirit than had Octavia. If she is to fall, she resolves to fall in open day, after making every possible resistance: Octavia yielded to the order and menace of her husband, and fell the victim of a confession by which the preservation of her life had been promised her. Caroline was offered a splendid bribe to make a similar confession, but she nobly refused it, and resolved to assert her innocence; and we doubt not but that she will convince the world of her innocence, and destroy Nero instead of Nero destroying her.
I have now sufficiently dilated upon the characters of the ancient and modern Nero, to strengthen the parallel drawn by Mr. Denman, and I shall conclude this part of my letter with saying, that it is not possible to find another pair of characters, between whom, a stronger parallel might be drawn. I have been anxiously waiting to see what Mr. Hone will do to strengthen the parallel and to vindicate the character of the ancient Nero. I had thought he had done with the modern Neró, after cutting him up for cat's meat. I shall now close my letter with some remarks upon your closing observations with regard to the conduct of her Majesty's counsel, and her answers to her various addressers. I will first quote your observations:
"Every passion of their lordships had been successively appealed to; and of his learned friends, he felt himself bound to say, that they had well and faithfully discharged their duty to their illustrious client. Neither he nor his friends made any complaint on this head; he rejoiced to see such zeal, ability, and talent exercised in defence of the Queen of these realms. His learned friends had endeavoured to awaken every sympathy, every passion of their lordship's nature; they had even appealed to the basest of all passions, the passion of fear. In that high and august assembly, of a nation renowned for its firmness and intrepidity, his learned friends had appealed to the passion of fear. Their lordships had been told by one of his learned friends, that if they passed this bill into a law, they would commit an act of suicide. By another of his learned friend's they were told, that if they passed this bill, it would be at their peril! The words hung sufficiently long upon bis learned friend's lips to be clearly understood, but they were afterwards affectedly withdrawn. He was astonished to hear such arguments urged-- arguments which could not serve, but might have an injurious effect on the case of the illustrious individual in whose behalf they were urged." know, my lords," said the learned gentleman, "that your lordships dare not do any
thing unjust; but I know at the same time that you will do what the ends of justice require, without regard to any personal consequences which may follow. But, my lords, it is not in this place only that such arts have been resorted to; a similar course has been followed out of doors; every attempt has been made to intimidate your Lordships and overawe your proceedings. Even the name of her Majesty herself has been profaned for base and factious purposes. In her Majesty's name, but undoubtedly without her consent, attacks have been made upon all that is sacred and veuerable. The Empire; the Constitution; the Sovereign; the Hierarchy; every order of the State; all has been darkly and malignantly attacked under the shield of her Majesty's name. But, my Lords, I do not suppose that this has been done with her Majesty's consent, if it had, well might we exclaim:
dum capitolio Regina dementes ruinas, Funus et imperio parabat.'
"In such a case we might well expect the commencement of a new era; but I again say, that I impute no such motives to her Majesty. 1 say, my Lords, that if, in looking to the whole of the evidence, you shall have the strongest moral conviction on your Lordships' minds of her Majesty's guilt, but you feel that there has not been such evidence brought forward as would lay the legal foundation of guilt; in that case, my Lords, you will throw out this Bill; you will say to her Majesty, in the language of my Learned Friend, Mr, Denman, 'go thou, and sin no moré.'"
I can scarcely give you credit for the first of your assertions. I am inclined to think that you would have much rather exchanged Gifford for one of her Majesty's Counsel.You must have trembled at the ability which has been opposed to you, but if an honesty equal to that ability had been displayed, you would have trembled more. I have no doubt but Mr. Brougham knew circumstances enough of ill-treatment from the King towards the Queen, to have driven the case out of Court by a mere statement of them. You rejoice at the unwarrantable neglect of recrimination. Mr. Brougham ought to have known the servile character of the persons before whom he was pleading, and his address should have been made to the public through that House. The majority of that House are just such men as the Duke of Newcastle has avowed himself to be, namely, to listen to the charge but not to the defence, and then to express their will to inflict all the pains and penalties required! I repeat now, before I know their decision, as to the second reading, that they are capable of acting against the clearest testimony of innocence and
right. As an advocate, Mr. Brougham was bound to have done all he could for his client, which he has avowedly neglected to do; but I shall rejoice to see the Lords pass the bill, because I know well, that it will not make the least impression upon the public mind. Within a month of the time of its so passing, we shall see a still more violent re-action; and this bill will become the symbol of the revolution.
"In that high and august assembly," say you, Mr. Copley, such language might be listened to without laughter in that assembly, but no where else. As a part of the legislature, that assembly is altogether useless, and as to its composition, it is of the most scandalous and degrading kind. I doubt whether there be one honest and independent man in the whole assembly, and as to their ancestors, such as have any, or know any thing of them, they will be found originally to have been a set of robbers. There is not an individual in that house who has conferred the least benefit on the society in which he lives. The last person of that description was the late Earl Stanhope, who laboured in every shape for the advancement of science and liberty. And for doing this he was denounced by the Ignobles as a madman!
You affirm that the attitude of the Queen and her advisers must be injurious to her. No, it will not be so: it is evident that her Majesty can look a step beyond the decision of the Lords, and can feel a contempt for their passing the Bill against her. They are but an assembly of wretched tools whom the breath of her Majesty might scatter into dust if she chose, and if the ministers are determined to make it a trial of physical strength, this will ultimately be the case. The legislature of Spain shows us that such an appendage is altogether useless.
You again tell the Ignobles, that you know they dare do nothing unjust, but they will do what the ends of justice require. The majority of them have no wills of their own, they are the tools of the ministers of the day, and will say and do any thing that they are bid to do for a new ribbon for themselves or their friends. They ought to wear pelticoats instead of robes; for in mind they are in a state of infancy when compared with the mass of the people. You next lay great stress upon the answers which her Majesty has given to the addresses presented to her. In the first place I should like to know how this could make a part of your case, or what right or business you had to notice it? Oh, thought you, I know their lordships, both Whig and Tory, at dreadfully sore about the style of those addresses: therefore, I will