The National Register. — London, England, 1820-07-09 00:00:00

50t I - tonal( ilk taiti trr Our Sting. Consititution anb Salmi. No. I,2SS—VoL. XIII.] THE QUEEN. -... Ix our last number we took a review of the mode of proceeding adopted by the advisers of the Crown respecting the Queen—we now proceed to the con sideration of the subject in the light, first, of a public, or, secondly, of a private offence; and, lastly, of the expediency or justice, in case of any offence committed (under all circumstances of the Queen's history) of seeking for any remedy out of the common course of either statute or customary law. As a public offence, the crime of adultery is visited, in consequence of the great evils which might arise from a disputed succession, in case of the 'defilement of the royal bed upon a Sovereign's con sort, with a penalty to which this crime is not liable in the instance of any other subject. The protection of the common-weal is the state reason of this pro vision, and gives rise to one more, among other anomalies, which, in Monarchy under any shape (so long as it is dignified, as it now generally is, and the Monarch is not considered the responsible, as well as, after all, the'real servant of the state,) are perhaps inherent; and will ever be until the social compact be more correctly ascertained, and more distinctly understood. Now, as it is a state reason alone which constitutes the public crime or injury, it is the bearing of the offence alone (supposing this to be the charge against the Queen), upon this view of the subject, which ought in reason to be the cri terion of the necessity of prosecuting it, as a public injury; but in the present instance, the object of prosecution is past the age when it is, in the course of nature, at all probable that any public injury, arising to the succession of the Monarchy, could be the result ; nor is it pretended, we believe, that any danger of this kind could arise, otherwise it would have been absurd, we had almost said criminal, in the House of Commons, as well as the Ministers, ever to have thought of an adjustment without a deli berate inquiry, at least into a matter of such great national importance. But it is clear, from the circum stance of the House of Commons having proposed, and Ministers have supported, a plan of adjustment highly advantageous to the Queen, supposing her to be justly liable to this imputation cast upon her, that this precludes the supposition of any necessity of pro secuting the supposed offences on the part of the Queen, as vitally affecting the state; and unless a very imperative necessity existed, wholly distinct from the necessity arising from the personal will of is Sovereign, we cannot see with what propriety ministers of state can turn away the public a: tetition from the scenes of public distress which exist every where, and add new fuel to the embers of discontent and dislike against those who live well while others starve, by irritating the human mind with acts of oeverity, which may be construed without, and, cer tainly, by the passions very easily, into persecution of a stranger, a woman, and an unprotected Queen. But it may be said, Has not the Sovereign a right the same with any private gentleman, if he can prove misconduct in his wife, to get rid of her without mference to criminal proceedings or statute prosecutions? Is a Sovereign to have his civil rights extinguished merely as a Sovereign? Certainly not. But, if it is to become the question of a private inquiry, then. besides topics of recrimination, span the possibility of which we shall not enter, although unquestionably as a private injury with a view to SUNDAY, JULY 9. 1820. damages (and in this instance the mulct would alone fall on the accused with, and not on the partner of offence), the party accused has a right to adduce these matters in palliation, if any can be brought. Besides all this we say, would those who are to de. tide upon that which is to be in the nature of punishment upon the party accused, not look to the distressed, the friendless state in which this unfor tunate lady has been left for so many years. With a spirit above submission, and a blood front high mettle, which has raced in the veins of a long ancestry superior far to mere pretensions of royalty— with a soul raised above the petty and transient distinctions of the world, and not above stooping to the humbler walks of humanity to seek that friend ship and confidence which was vainly sought for in the paths of greatness—we understand, from all quarters, that she is a brave and generous creature; and, if the current of the soil turned from its natural and proper channel, may have burst even the bounds of formality at least, and exceeded the cold calculations of the etiquette of the Court, from which she has been banished, there is, 'after all, more to pity than to detest ; there is, at all events, no failing beyond that which grows of infirmity, and though we are no apologists foe female indiscretions, yet would we call upon mankind to distinguish between vices of hell and vices of flesh and blood alone.— Human nature prompts to sinful weakness—the devil inspires malignity and revenge—and we ask, what husband in private, having left, we were going to say committed (but we will not) his wife to the winds and tides of life, could go to an insur ance office to be repaid for her shipwreck ? Not that we mean, in our comparison of vices, to insinuate any diswspect toward, or application to, the illus trious individual, who must naturally feel much irritated under all circumstances, upon a supposition that one-tenth of the charges pushed upon society as truth against the distinguished lady in question be true; but we ask, as a private injury, viewing all circumstances from the cradle to the grave of the affair, are there not such grounds for mitigation of what we may call, though not literally, damages, as to make it unadviseablc for friends at least to bring the suit ititoCourt? Unhappy connections may subsist —they are peculiarly likely to subsist in that walk of life where the choice is too confined ; but where they happen, though we may pardon any fair attempt to dissolve them, yet we cannot but think, on both sides, all spirit of rancour should be allayed by a sense of mutual misfortune; and, at all events, in such a case as that of a civil injury in cave of 'Out. tery, the remedy of divorce ought to be sought, as by other subjects, in the ordinary course of law ; and though certainly a spirit infinitely strong in fa vour of the Queen exists, so as to afford a plea, rr haps, that a fair trial might be difficult to be obtained, yet we have no doubt that by mutual con sent of both parties challenging inquiry, a jury may be arranged upon which themselves and the country might fairly rely. Lastly, let us consider the expediency and justice, in case of offence committed, of seeking for any remedy out of the common course of things. It is alleged that there is a difficulty to proceed by im peachment, in consequence of the alleged offence being committed with a foreigner; and from the exannuation of Count Munster, which we hear has token place, we should not be surprised if something relating to a pecuniary transaction (tin offence, by [pßicz gid. the bye, when we remember that the Queen volun tarily gave 15,0001 a year out of the 50,0001. not very probable), were part of the Green Bag. But whatever the offence or offences be, they are evidently beyond the reach of any ordinary provision of law, and are to be taken up upon the general ground of affecting the character of the Monarchy, and thereby constituting an offence deserving of an extraordinary and extra-judicial visitation from the collective wisdom of the legislature of the country. Now we will broadly and flatly say, that in a Go vernment of law, an extra judicial proceeding of this kind, upon the maturest consideration, is a pre. eedent fur the most shameless despotism, though we do not mean to say that it, in itself, is so intended, because if the time is to arrive when any part of conduct is to be construed into crime, and subjects • of civil Courts are to be mixed into criminal charges, then whenever the administration can join the con• fidence, by any means, of Parliament, so as to have •heir word taken for the propriety of their proceed. ings, then no one is safe; but any one who, from boldness, energy, and ficuth, may be obnoxious to a Cabinet like that of the Cabal in the reign of Charles 11. may easily be overwhelmed by the resist. less might of legislative bodies, who, when once in a train of error or corruption, are ten times more terrible than a single despotic master,because shame, which occasionally operates upon tyrants, has no influence over bodies of men who individually share so little disgrace, and are emboldened by such numerous company, that no compunctious visitings are likely to operate upon them. Dear countrymen I be your party what it may, we warn you to beware of such a tremendous calamity! No horror of revolution can be so great, if ever such a state of things; as that of which we warn you should arrive; and it would be better to risk ahuost any thing than wilfully to withhold constitutional efforts, at least, against any thing which points this way. It is better that a great sinner, if such there be, should escape, than that an act of injustice should be committed, which may form a precedent the most abominable. Let us suppose for a moment such an extra-judicial inquiry to be established into the conduct of every one of the royal family who may be subjects, without going to the Monarch himself—would it be decent, or pleasant, or just ? Or, let us suppose that all the nobility who have been convicted in courts of law of aduhery or other misdemeanour, should be hauled over the coals, and that a Bill of Pains and Penalties should be intro duced against them, upon the ground of their having degraded the situation of life which they hold as a trust fur the good of the community ;—let us suppose all the follies, and "vices, and duels, toc-janibings and horse.whippings, which any ital. vidual may have done or suffered, to be adduced as matter for a Green Bag, and solemnly laid bef,a - t the Parliament of the country. Nay, we may add with Mr. Hobhouse, that if matters are to proceed in this way, that an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Lord Chancellor, having run away wit)i thclr wives, may be made matter hereafter for a Green Bag: two events, the recollection of which one day made the late King laugh ready to split his sides. k k!!:,1:t ) —ln short, we asser t, if t h e o ff ences charged ‘.. \ against the Queen were statut:tbly criminal, or " civilly amenable to a court of justice, that under all, '" • • - existing circumstances, it would be better not tqk -4 have noticed thou; but that to pr ocee d i n th e pre-± A • 4 sent manner against offences not the usual subjects of u charge, as crime or misdemeanour, accordiii.,' , ',a a mode adopted only in the worst of times, is a),l cent, unjostitiable, oppressive, and a most tremen dous precedent agaiost genera! liberty.