Star. — London, England, 1820-11-09 00:00:00

4. • _ as loyal as the Noble Lord, or any men. He wished, therefore, to know whether that Noble Lord was in order--(Hmr, hew). He was proceeding, but was interrupted by Lord HOLLAND, who spoke to order. The Noble Lord (Cokle, oncuiross) had asked whether his Noble Friend was In order h but tad not shewn him to be disorderly, or pointed out how, which every Noble Lord was bound to do who took upon him to interrupt another--C.Lond cheers). The motion, he verily believed, might not be agreeable to the Noble Lord; but it did not, on that account, become disorderly—(Hear, hear). Lord LAUDERDALE, with great vehemence, supported the objections to Lord King's Clause. He yiblded to no man in loyalty, but he thought this motion attacked every Peer who had supported the Bill ; and it was the manner of making it, rather than the motion itself, which all must perceive to be dis orderly—{Cheers). Lord ICING could not allow that anything disorderly was contained in his Clause. It ascribed no motives to any one escept loyalty, of which every one was, and justly might be, proud. It only affirnted what was the necessary consequence of loyal feelings, and assumed that their Lordships, as loyal men, the moment the Queen Consort became, by succession, Queen Reg nant, would change their belief respecting her conduct. This was a necessary consequence of their regard for the first principles of the Constitution, by which every - Monarch was deemed " most emettemt," without any regard to his conduct or character. The Clause was negatived without a division, and the Chair man was directed to report the Bill. The Houma resumed, and ordered the Report to be received tomorrow. THE MINORITY nu sus nom or usage THAT VOTZD 10/11. urmsonse TAB DIVORCE CLAUSE. Euls Fitzwillians Stanhope Balcarras Dartmouth Aylesford Verulam Morton Portsmouth Caledon Lauderdale Sc. Germain's Lords Hill Rodney Yarborough Baboon Brining Kenyon Calthorpe Comberniere Sidney Curzon Falmouth. p r . of Chester Cock and Bosse Peterborough Gloucester St. Asaph's St. David's Worcester. Earls Winchilwa Courtown Mount-Catihel Romney Stamford Brownlow CABINET MINISTERS, FRAMERS OP THE RILL. Sit'mouth I Harrowby Westmorland Melville Mulgrave Wellington Bathuro Liverpool Eldon, C. Aylesbury Macclesfield Farnham Pomfret Whitworth Mayo Shaftesbury. Marquis Cornwallis. Dukes of Cluence Portland Beaufort. Abp. of York Tuam. PROTESTS AGAINST THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL OF P.UNS AND PENALTIES NOVLIMIt 6, 1820. DISSENTIENT, NO. I. Becatse the second reading of the Bill is equivalent to a deci sion that adulterous intercourse (the only foundatidn on which the Bill can rest) has been satitfactorily proved. Because that adulterous intercourse has been inferred, but not proved ; and in a doubtful case, in which the imputed guilt is not proved, although innocence be not established, the benefit of that doubt, conformably to the principles of British justice, must be given to the defendant Essex, first reason only liilsborough, first reason only Kenyon Orford Somerset Seises Mansfield Enniskillen Richmond and Lennox Jersey, first reason only. Carrick Grafton, first reason only Anson, first reason only Darlington, first reason only 13elhaven, first reading only. Roseberry Morley, first reason only Leinster DISSENTIENT, NO. 11. Because this proceeding, from its nature, cannot be assimilated to a common indisantent, in which a conviction upon one count alone. out of many, is sufficient. And because, although enough has been proved in evidence to satisfy us of the existence of guilt, yet as evidence on many of the allegations has been opotmdicted, in some disproved, and in others is so suspicious as to be laid wholly out of the case, we are of opinion that it is inexpedient , to proceed further in this measure. Plymouth Clinton, second reason only. 1 Dynevor , Gage, second reason Grantham lichester Denbigh The following Peers have also protested against the Bill, upon general grounds: DISSENTIENT, NO. 111. Fortescue Darlington Belhaven Grafton Breadalbani Auckland Dawnay (Downy) Mendip (Clifden) Leinster Hawke Gosford Ronusey Roseberry Scott (Pordand) Thanes Hood Ashburton Howard of Effingham Alvanley Carnarvon Dundas Caledon Sundridge (Duke of Argyll) Dude King Rosalyn Dacre Calthorpe Grantham Ellenborough. William Frederick Lansdown Ji.xsey Grey , Plymouth Fitzgibbon Albemarle Hamilton and Brandon Duncan Ilihborough Wentworth (Fltzwilllam) Derby Anson Yarborough Sherburne Oowper Audley Kenyon Carrick Seises Foley Arden Egremont Torrington Suffolk and Berks Loftus (RIO Morley Granville Richmond and Lennox Bedford M1412:41tr PEERS. List of reers,, Colonels of Regiments, who voted for Ole second reeding of the Bill gaipst the Queen ed Life Guards - Lord Cathcart. Royal Hone Guards - - Duke of Wellington. 9th Dragoon Guards - Marguis of Anglesey. 14th Light Dragoons - =l.arl of Bridgewater• ;6th ditto - ••• - 'Earl of Harcourt. IstGuards - - - Duke of York. Ist Foot - - Marquis of Handy", 4th Ditto 9 7 - Earl of Chatham. 51st Ditto - Earl Mulgrave. sad Ditto - - - - = Lord HIP. 63e Ditto r r Earl of Balcarras. Vid Ditto • - - Lord Harris. Stat Ditto - - Lord Forbes. The biota of the following alio voted for the second reading Foot - T Genera Maitland, Lord Lauderdale's brother, pm gap - Lord ljutehinson, bard PoPoughplores brotka, THE EVENING STAR. • LOJ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1820. Loss Moros's Am—Hob* at tile Bask. THE QUEEN. After closing our report of the proceedings Tester. day, in our Second Edition, we offered some remarks, which we shall here repeat : " The fate of the Divorce Clause occasions no small degree of amazement in every direction. By the car rying of this Clause, it might appear, on the first an nouncement of the fact, that Ministers would inevit ably succeed in carrying the Bill, on the third reading. But it is extremely possible that the carrying of this Clause will cause the rejection of the Bill ; for many who voted for the t econd reading, did so in the belief that the Divorce Clause would be struck l out in the Committee on the Bill ; and declared that they could not, in their consciences, vote for a third reading, were this Clause retained ! Many of'the ar mies of the QUERN even assert that a majority for the Clause was manoeuvred, by some of her MaJzszea friends voting fur the Clause, for the very purpose of bringing the Bill to the third reading in that very state in which many of its supporters on the second reading had declared they could not, and would not, give it their support. " The dilemma in which some Lords have thus been placed is exceedingly curious, and the Public wait to see with what degree of consistency they will act on the third reading. Even Lord LAUDERDALE has de clared himself against the Divorce Clause; that is, in his opinion, it would either be unjust or impolitic, or both, to enact such a clause : of course it would be unjust or impolitic to read such a Bill a third time, and we cannot anticipate that his Lordship will act in a way which he has condemned, by saying • content ' on the third reading." We find from the Morning Papers of this day, that we were not singular in the foregoing view of the probable result of yesterday's division, in which, ,as our Readers will see, nine ofthe Cabinet Ministers werefound in the minority. In one word, the Divorce Clause was carried by the enemies of the Bill—by the QUEEN'S friends, and those convinced of her in nocence, that her enemies might be compelled to swallow the whole of their own prescription, however nauseous it may now have become, or reject it entirely. We yesterday recommended to the consideration of men sitting in the three-fold character of Accusers, Jur)men, and Judges—[Were ever such characters blended in this country, except when the laws of England were set at defiance rj—we recommended to their consideration, the words of Janus to the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees—" HE that is trithbut sin among YOU, let HIM first cast a stone at her:' We intended this day to have endeavoured, for the edification of some Bishops who, perhaps, think more abcut other translation's than those of the Old and New Testament, to have offered some observations calculated to shew that neither, by the Laws of GOD nor the Laws of England can their Lordships vote for the Bill with the Divorce Clause; but we have been so ably anticipated by a contemporary of this morning (The Morning Chronicle), that, we are sure, we shall gratify our Readers by quoting the article, ' .4 Sir WILLIAM SCOTT" in EVANS V. EVANS, says, Marriage is a religious as well as civil contract made at the altar of GOD, and indissoluble except for a very few reasons known to the law: Judge BLACK STONE considers marriage merely a civil contract, but we prefer the authority of Sir WILLIAM Score, which coincides with the opinions of all the eminent Civilians. The adultery of the wife is one of those reasons, and that agrees with what Caaiar saith in the 19th of St, Matthew and the 9ih verse, which confines divorces to the single cause of adultery in the wife, Now let us examine what our blessed Loan did, and said, on a very memorable occasion— ' He that is without.sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her: 4 He says to them in this answer, only consider that he who is thus zealous in punishing also ther, should in all equity be free from guilt himself. Whoever, therefore, among you has a clear and ine nocent conscience, let him begin and cast the first stone at the woman.' Dr. S. CLAftzr.-- 4 The first gone was thrown by the first principal accuser: k was of great bulk and weight, and generally fatal,' Dent. 13th chap. and 9th verse. Our Loads meaning is, I shall not condemn the woman myself, for it is not my office ; you may do it, if you will affirm yourselves to be those righteous men which you desire to be accounted, but this you dare not do before me, who, as ye well know, can prove the con. trary, and give the by.standers such a history of what you have been and what you are, as will make you ashamed to shew yourselves, and therefore it is that I challenge and defy you to proceed:— Bishop Hotter:-- 4 And they which heard it being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,' 9th verse, Never was triumph more complete. These hypocrites were self-convicted, confounded,and disgraced before the multitude,' Dr. HALES. The Law of England proceeds on the equity that the hus band should be free from guilt himself, and establish his purity before two Tribunals, if it be possible, be fore he gets a divorce a vino:10 matrisonii, in the House of LEA'S; A 4 AU swats the advitcry most be rand by satisfactory evidence at the )3 sir of the House, and it will be fatal to the application of the complainant, should he appear to have been the treasivessor. We understand that my Lords the Bishops have alba. upon themselves to didele the preropfres,.et the Cfown. Postponing this question for the ptMNt► ' we would ask their Lordships whether, keeping in -- atialie Bth chapter of St. John an 7th yen* the 15th chapter of Matthew, 19th 1 Cor. 6, 9 ; Gal. 6, 9 ; Hebrews, 13, 4: and the comma& taxies cited by us, which the whole Bench of Mime have sanctioned in a General Council in *S edition of the Bible, edited by Drs. DOILISi L aiIi MAN; Chaplains to the present Archbishop of CAI TIIIIBURTI and not forgetting what St. Peter saith— 'Of ' a truth I perceive Goa is no respecter of per sons'—can yen, with the Bible in your hands, let the fatal stone be thrsvin ? Some of their Lordships argot legally and *stay, the KING can do no wrong, and that whatever wrong he did before he was Ktzto, is purged by his being KiNo. Their Lordships are often not very clear on Divine subjects, but when they mix them with legal considerations, the compound is likely to be rather heterogeneous. One Noble Lord argues that the KING cannot commit a folly. much' less a crime.-4 Black. Com. 32. His Lordship is content with a very superficial investigation, for be would have found that the authority BLACICaIONE cites, warrants nothing of the kind. He refers to }lmam P. C. 44, where the Judge writes, the Knso is not under the coercive power of the lasi. The KING can do no wrong ; bat this high prerogative is created for the benefit of the people, and therefore cannot be exerted to their prejudice. 1 Black. Com, 245.—See Nicols v. Nicols; Plowden, 487; Haw. P. L. 391. Even DeLeit.sta knew 'that the KING has not the power of doing ill, but only that he is out of the reach of all Courts of Law whatever:—Delolme on the English Const. 73. What says the Coronation Oath ? Will you, to the best of your power, cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed, in all your judgments?—' That the pretended power of dispens ing with laws; or the execution of laws, by legal authority, as it bath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal'—See W. and M. c. 2, sec. 2. Same of the Bishops say it is expedient, and therefore right. We agree, if it be expedient, it is right; but then, as PaLa'v says, 4 it must be expedient upon the whole, at the long sun, in all its effects, collateral and re mote, as well as in those which are immediate and direct; as it is obvious that, in computing conse quences, it makes no difference in what way, or at what distance they ensue:—Paley, Mor. Phil. 83. What would be the general consequence, that the , Kirro, who is at the head of the Church, _might do that with impunity which is contrary to the express commands of GOD, and therefore, by evil example, bring the religion of the country into contempt ? Is this expedient ? So much for the reasonings of my Lords the Bishops. Lawyers are accustomed to look into authorities. Again, is it politically expedient to pass the Bill without the Divorce Clause, and thereby record a vote of censure on the conduct of the KING? That is inexpedient, as yesterday determined ; thence it is clear it is contrary to the religion of the coun try to pass the Bill with the Clause—so that, in neither case, is the measure expedient." But it is very possible that at the very moment while we are quoting grave and solid opinions, founded on the Scriptures, on the Law of England, and on Expediency, their Lordships are actually oc cupied in giving their decision on this monstrous Bill of Pains and Penalties. Yes, men who cannot, in the nature of things, give an impartial, unbiassed judgment on the case, are employed in arguing the propriety and necessity of the Bill. Can Minis ters be impartial judges in this ease if they would ? The infirmities of our' nature will not permit it.— The acquital of the Quests is their own condemna tion ; and who shall dare to say that he can judge impartially between himself and another? It is an insult to the common sense of mankind to lay claim to any such virtue. vomM11•111 Lord LIVERPOOL stated, in a speech on Tuesday, that he felt " that it was his duty to discharge in that House the functions imposed upon him, without any attempt privately to influence (and the occurrences of yesterday would, he conceived, chew that no at tempt had been made privately to influence) in the slightest degree the opinion or conduct of others."— Lord Livitnroor. here admits, that in a case of this kind Lords may be privately influenced, and he refers us to some indefinite test by which we are to know that he has not made use of his power. What an im putation he has here thrown out against the honesty of the Peers t What a demand he makes at the same time en our credulity I He admits that he had the power of privately iithiewing the Peers if he chose, and then is a case in which he is so deeply interested, in which he openly betrays his partiality by his in. isnanatory pleading, be requires us to believe that , be has not used that power. Some good friend-of his Lordship, we presame„ must have interested his wishes, and taken the trouble of solicitation ot his , heeds ; for bow otherwise are we to account for the wenn canvass which brought even Peers to the de cision who did not hear the evidence ? As our Readers have, no doubt, paid much men. !ion to the arguments adduced by some Learned and Reverend Lords on the propriety of divorcing her MAMMY, they mazy not be displeased to be enabled to compere with Owe effusioas the delibqratc meats of certain Members of the Home of Peers, ui the right of a husband to the remedy of a Divorce. We therefore lay before them an extract of the pro ceedings of the Home at Lords, ISth March, 1802 cuinrs DIVORCE BILL. a Oa the ordee for the second reading of this Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord ELDON), after several Miter reeesets. observed, that it MU evident her hus ked hell frosted her with great inattention; that he wit to leave her alone frequently, and by that mews afforded her opportunities of forming an im proper connexion with the adulterer. It was the duty of every husband not only to treat his wife with attention and kindness, and give her as much of his society as possible. but to exercise a degree of vigilance by which he should be able to discover whether she had formed any improper connexion, and by that means prevent the worst consequences from happening; but in the present instance there appeared to be an uncommon degree of carelessness and indifference; and, although he did not believe that Mr. Crewe had been actuated by improper motives, or that he entered into any kind of collusion, he must consider him as not entitled to the relief he sought for, and therefore he should oppose the Bill. • -I , " Lqrd Rawl:hue said, that whether th e oct of adultery had been, proved or not was a matter of no great consequence in the present case. tie only question was, whether Mr. Crewe had sustained such an injury as rendered him a fit subject of relief? and this was to be judged of only by his own conduct. It appeared, that he had been in the constant habit of spending his evenings from home, of neglecting his wife, and absenting himself from her society ; and, however he himself (Lord Redesdale) felt per sonally for that Gentleman, the duty he owed to the Public would not permit him to agree to the Bill be fore the House. “ The Bishop of RocnErrEit said, before a man could claim such a relief as‘that of a divorce a vin cula ,aatrimonii, he must came before the House clothed with a clear, pure, and unsuspected charac ter. It was incumbent on him to skew that he wa* a good domestic husband, and that he spent the greater part of his time in company with his wife. There wan no such thing here; but it was proved by witnesses that this Gentleman used to absent himself from his wife and his house two or three times a week, and stay out to a most unseasonable hour. He was not, therefore, entitled to any favour from the House. g , Lord AUCKLAND perfectly coincided in the opi nions delivered by his Noble and Learned Friends, and the Reverend Prelate near him. After several other Peers had delivered their opinions, the House divided, and the Bill was lost, by a majority of nearly three to one." HOUSE OF LORDS, NOVEMBER 9. PROCEEDINGS OF Tills DAY. TRIAL HY HER MAJZSTC The Loan Crtatteau.os took his seat on the Woolsack a few minutes before tea o'clock. Prayers tome read, and the list was read over. Apologh a were made for the Marquis of Heat. roan, Lords alexia% Liman, Huowseaus, and Mousy, who were indisposed. The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter fro= Lad Hews.sup, stating that he could not attend this morning on ac, soot of ill health; and begging that his motion might stand ewer. The Noble and Leazned Lord thought Lord Hottssu should be allowed to sign the Pretest, as he had otnitwd it, being absent on account of ill health; and, perhaps, their Lord ships would nlicror the Noble Lord near hint (Darnley), to sign le also, as be lied omitted in forgetfulness. On the motion of Lord Munro, Lords Darnley, Ersidne s , Anson, Bolingbroke, Ellenberough, and Mato, were allowed to sign the Protest. Lord 'OH wished to be allowed to sip the second reason of dissent wily. Lord LAUDERDALE thought any Noble Lord might be allowed to sign the Protest, but the day an which the permission was granted should be specified. It was then resolved, that any Peer might sign the Protet% this day, and that Lard Holland should he 'Sowed to sign it when he was sufficiently recovered to attend the House. Lord SHAFTESBURY brought up the Report of the Come mittee, while it was reading, The Duke of HAMILTON rose to propose an amendment, which would enable him, and those Noble Lords who agreed with hint, to record their opinions on the Bill. The amend. meat he would move was, that that part of the Preamble which held the Adultery as proved be left out. The Earl of LIVERPOOL conceived all the amendments of the Committee should be gone through, before any new amendment was proposed. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was usual to read all the am endmegte of the Committee, and put them separately. The amendments relating to the alteration of the name of Berpad, were pet and agreed to. Lard ELLENBOROUGH undentood that many Noble Lords had voted for the second reading of the Bill, in the un derstanding that it would undergo much modification in the Committee, and the only alteration that had been made, was omitting the article " the." He therefore hoped, that those Noble Lords who had voted for the second reading in the seapectatiesi of the Bill being amended, would oppose its further Pintoes- The Ead of LAUDERDALE, could not kelp remonstra ting on lti soft* of those Noble Lords who had voted against the Ilk wad yet vemd for the Divorce clause. Ills Noble What pet Orey) acknowledged that he had done so with the *We asedig rid of the Bill altogether. He was astonished diet tiny Noble Lord could &sod himself to such a wick and minnow s get rid of the Bill. He should like to know, ma what psiodiple of sonsitteney those would at who "tell for the seve.ed endings and yet Would oppose the third reading of the Bill ? Ead GUY.—+" My larb—lt is not Araiy with surprite. bqt with PM degree of Wiped= that I have beard the charge 4 the Noble Lord who has jut sat down, who, heel /whits et friendship, might to have known me better than to Wise Ole el UM aid =MOW Thi awe cora wel T ' l ,* F demi lion% vatic] of hb Y Atx 11 pani 11 Vtiai Sir C Eat'. of Gu ditn a d LA' and thei 1 tiv rel left Ha Inc talc