too, by reference to the
report of the proceedings in the "Annual Register," that of the peers
who decided to vote against the second reading of the bill on the ground
of _inexpediency_, a large majority gave it as their deliberate opinion
that the case had been proved against the queen.[43] In a very clever
pictorial satire, published by S. Humphrey in 1821, the queen, Bergami,
and a third figure (possibly intended for Alderman Wood) are represented
as standing on a pedestal forming the apex of a slender stem labelled
"Mobility," which rests on a base marked "Adultery." The whole structure
depends for support on a broom (in allusion of course to Mr. Brougham)
and two frail pieces of wood, labelled respectively, "Sham addresses,"
and "Sham processions," which in turn rest on a slender railing, while a
ladder on either side, marked "Brass" and "Wood," lend a further slight
support to the very insecure fabric. The superincumbent weight of the
queen and Bergami breaks the frail stem in pieces, and the three figures
tumble to the ground together. The back of the design is occupied with
scenes and incidents detailed in the evidence. A very clever caricature,
without date (published by T. Sidebotham), I am inclined to assign to
this period; and if so, it is one of the most plain spoken and telling
satires ever published. It is entitled, _City Scavengers Cleansing the
London Streets of Impurities_; a placard which has fallen in the street
sufficiently explains its meaning: "By particular desire of the Society
for the Suppression of Vice, D-- of K--t in the chair, ordered that the
city officers do keep the streets clear of common prostitutes.--Signed,
Wood, Mayor."[44]

A more foolish and undignified proceeding, however, than this "Bill of
Pains and Penalties" can scarcely be conceived. Its fate might almost
have been predicted from the first. The second reading was carried on
the 6th of November, by a majority of twenty-eight, but the third (for
the reasons already given) by a majority of nine only; whereupon, the
Earl of Liverpool said that, "had the third reading been carried by as
considerable a number of peers as the second had been, he and his
colleagues would have felt it their duty to persevere with the bill and
to send it down to the other branch of the legislature. In the present
state of the country, however, ... they had come to the determination
not to proceed further with it."[45] The victory will be acknowledged