The secret committee charged with examining the documents in the sealed bags made their report early in July. This report was to the effect that the documents contained allegations, supported by the concurrent testimony of witnesses of various grades in life, which deeply affected the honour of the Queen, charging her, as they did, with a ‘continued series of conduct highly unbecoming her Majesty’s rank and station, and of the most licentious character.’ The committee reluctantly recommended that the matter should become the subject of solemn inquiry by legislative proceeding. The ministers postponed any explanation as to the course to be adopted by them upon this report until the following day. The Queen exhibited no symptoms of being daunted by it. She appeared in public on the evening of the day on which the report was delivered, and, if cheers could attest her innocence, the _vox populi_ would have done it that night. As the Queen’s carriage was passing in the vicinity of Kensington Gate it encountered that bearing the Princess Sophia. The two cousins passed each other without exchanging a sign of recognition, and the doughty livery servants of the Princess showed that they had adopted the prejudices or convictions of _their_ portion of the royal family by refusing obedience to the commands of the mob, which had ordered them to uncover as they passed in presence of the Queen. On Wednesday, the 5th of July, Lord Liverpool brought in the ever-famous Bill of Pains and Penalties, a bill of degradation and divorce. Lord Liverpool had previously protested against a divorce. Why he now turned to a still more dangerous expedient he explains in a letter inserted in his Memoirs. ‘In the case of a private individual the question of divorce is a question of personal relief. The law of man, not the law of God, says properly in this case, we will not give you the relief unless by your conduct you are entitled to it. But the King does not, and cannot, apply for relief as an individual; his accusation is a public accusation, resting on public grounds. Adultery in a Queen is a crime against the State. The private offence is merged in the public crime, and must follow the effect of it. How is it possible to entertain a charge of recrimination against a King, who in the eye of the law can do no wrong?’ The Queen demanded, by petition, to be furnished with the specific charges brought against her, and to be heard by her counsel in support of that demand. The House refused, and Lord Liverpool went on with his Bill.