The National Register. — London, England, 1820-11-12 00:00:00

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—T apprehend that, ac• cording to the ordinary course of proceediug, after the seeond reading of a Biller this nature, the person who is the object of the Bill has a right to be personally heard. It is, therefore. for your Lordships to cousider whether tlii. Protest is to be received as the Address of the ineividtiel : as such, I conceive that it sney be received, but that as a Protest it cannot. Lord DACRE.—My Lords, I am aware of the difficulty pointed oneby the Learned and Noble L ird on the Wool sack; but as it is admitted that her Majesty may be heard personally, your Lordships, I ant sure, would nut wish to press on a person of her exalted rank end Miamian, the necessity of addressing your Lordships, bat that, iu some forte, the Protest of her Nlajesty will bo admitted. The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought, us this might be the most convenient mode of her Majesty expressing her sentiments, there could be nu oujec t i tttt s to receiving it ; and, to prevent its being drawn into a precedent, some entry on the Journals, stating it to be especial case, might be made. The LORD CHANCELLOR deemed it is ditty to stele to the House, that the only way in which lie conceived the Protest could be admitted, was, not as a Protest, hut as a representation front her Majesty, instead of a personal Address. Lord L tUDERDALE begg , (1 to know front their Lord ships, whether, considering the context, that Al‘li cis would have been received in the I letise as 1141 t Or 3 Pjlef!IIII without interruption? Was it possible teat their Lore ships would permit themselves to be titres dais:feted lie begged amid implored their Lettlseips to reerdlrct own dignity; and, while they were ',minden any state ment to go upon their journele, to take care that it should not convey any stigma upon their own character. (Hear.) The Duke of NEWCAS•I'LE rose. He had, he said beard some observations, intimating, that by an es post facto law, some of their Lordships, who had been una voidably absent, were to he deprived of their most valua ble privilege, that of voting. Now he was determined to maintain all his privileges, and be should du his duty cote acientionsly, without fear of consequences. Earl GREY said, the question before the House was whether their Lordships should or should not receive the Paper presented to them—a question which had nothing to de with the Noble Lord's seutimeuts of the Bill.— (Hear, hear.) Lord CARNARVON said, the case was of such a natnre, that the absence of any Noble Lord fur a single hour might have been of great importance. Much, however, in such circ 1111 l stances as those under which the teneen laboured, insist be left to the discretion of their Lordships. He was aware that the language of the Paver was, strictly speakiug, objectionable, but great alto watte.. should tie made for the painful situation i 3 which her Majesty was placed ; and he trusted that the greatest latitude would be given. He should certainly have been emelt better pleased Viler Majesty had said, their Lordships had come to a consideration of her ease under circumstances which rendered it impossible that their minds should not be biassed. (Hear, (hear.) He, at the saute time, must de clare, that if he had been on the Committee, he should mot entertain a thought of voting, cotivinced, as he was, such was hutnau infirmity, he cuuld nut but be an inadequate judge—(Bear.)—Had he been Counsel for her Majesty, he would lint have advised her to submit any more appeals to the House ; afid ire could not help expressing his surprise at • the fact that orate Noble Lords thought themselves at liberty to come to a decision about the guilt or innocence of the Queen, mid lit the 63111 e time to trample under their feet the most vital principles of justice !—(Hear, hear )—He con demned the conduct of the Noble Duke (Newcastle), who said that an es poet facto haw had been inade to prevent him voting. Uutsecustolued to the forms of law, the Noble Duke had, in the anxious discharge of his ilmy, trenched *pun the most olivines principles of justice. Why, asked his Lordship, had the Noble Earl opposite mince, at the coin. mencernent of this proceeding, that the House should be called over ? Why was it that no Peer was allowed to vote by proxy ? Was it nut because no Pter was entitled `to vote who did nut personally attend the investigation of the case. When the Noble Duke claimed the right of voting witliont hearing the defence, he was, its fact, claiming to vote by proxy I it was to gill intents and purposes the same thine. • die renthered well the words of the Noble Earl opposite (Lord Liverpool); when he moved the call of the House, lie had said, must empha tically, that he trusted no Noble Lord would presume to give a vine ou the case who did nut hear the whole of the evidence.--(blear.) The Noble Lord on the wuelseck, too, hail assented to the principle, though he had some what qualified; he had said, dist if he were to be two or three days absent dating the proceedings, he slimed nut consider himself justified in voting on the bill.—(Hear, hear). But did either of these Noble Lords ever con template that any Noble Peer who shoald be absent, net days, but weeks, who should not hear one word lit the detence, should come down met -Ay, tint he was not only ready to vote for the Bel, lint for the severest penalties which tt conteiniel.—(Loud cheers). Ile thought that cons:der ing every thin. , , this was a case in which tile ilou,e could not p.lax tau tuude front uny strict rules of practice, in favirir of cite area rediatr.y. He saw nothing so Mien - nal in the Pimest, as shouiti prevent its being received. The contents of it, as tar us respected rn ate: of fact, were strictly tide; they were seeit as all their lordships, es the whole country, must feel the force of; he wedtel to tkon they mild seem be torgutten ; for. while remembered the judicial charaeter of their I.untsiuis would never again occupy that high situ Lion which it had heretofore main tamed. Lunt DONOLU;H NlOlt 1 4 : ha.l the same tealing oa tliesuikiect with the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. After ail, there was noihiug new in die protest; the unhy new ground of objection we, that wine of thtir Lordships 1141 absented them selves during the defence, mud that of .e W.:, as OtijeCOoll which must Live arisen at the etllll3l.':iet4l/e.it of these preceedines. Earl OBEY thought that the mischiefs threatened by this proweding, were now be mid all hope lit remedy. It coaipille I to attend he would ; but he del nut f•el disposed to take ash further part tll these proceedings, except by giving a silent vote. He considered the ob.:el:Lion 'wilt:Marl, strong which reapecteil those Noble Lord., who Iced Umight it consistent with their Neuter and duty, and had iecoaciled it to their ionscieneas, Otter hearing tlicevi.tence the the pruiectitien, and not mac syllable lit the the:nee—Meer, heat)—to give mew votes on quastent lit this m o mentous nature. 11.: had no right to had faint with mese Nuole Lords. They must answer to Gad and tu elm eueszieeces fur the vote they had given. The' Iteeoltatiou of the Lord Chancellor, as amended by Lonl Lauderdale, that the protest of her Majesty received, was then put and carried without a division. On the Order of the Day being reed for the House resolving itself into a Co 11111 l ittee, The Earl uf DAIteILLY said, he Would nut long detain their . - TILE NATIONAL REGISTER T.ordshipa. hut content himself at present with protesting against this, mite had done against every stage of the proceeding. He ! (Lord Darnley) had understood, both from the Noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Noble Earl opposite,(Liverpool), that their Lordships should attend thes proce e stiozs die is di em , unl e ss ptevented by siekresss ; and that if any - Peer was absent during an important pa-t of the trial, he should not be entitled to vote ; and yet a Noble Lord had voted against the Queen who had not heard her defence. The Noble had concluded by declaring, that he would take this opportunity, sod every opportunity, of giving every oppmition to the Bill. After a few words front Lord Sheifi.ll, the Haase resolved itself into a Committee. The Earl of SII A ESFIU RY (the Chairman) putting the question whether the discussion on the preamble isituuld be post poned ? the Earl of LIVERPOOL would now read the preamble, and state such alterations as Inn deemed neees,tiry; the first was, the name of the individual who was so conspicuous in these proceed ing!: which he wished to be altered to • Barmbineu Bergami," mead of Bartholonio Pergarni. He would also move that the words of the preamble, charging the Queen with having •• oh• tainal for him orders of Knightlicied, and titles of honour," should ha struck out—not that he had any doubt of the fact, but it had been proved in evidence. Ile would now conic to a Lllo6i material part of the preamble, which stated, that " while her Royal Highness hail the said Bartolomeo Bergami in her service, she, unmindful of her exalted bitch and station. and regardless of heruwn honour, conducted herself tawatds Beigami, in the various places and countries W11,1%2 her II oyal Highness visited, with indecent and offensive fa.niliarity mid Leedom." lie would isiave that the ward •• the" 1ii10.11,1 be struck out, and that it should stand, "in various places countries." Thesewere the only alaeratinis lie deemed necessary, and lie would afterwards Lee mansion to state, that the preainhle had Veen fully proved, Lord ERSKINE. said, their Lordships were, is his opiniou, going to strike out the only part of the preamble that was true. Ile (Lord Erskine) did not believe that the degrading intercouse with which the Queen was charged had been proved. Lord ELLEN BOROUGH inured that the words " adulterous intercourse" should be omitted, as it would be injustice to the King to let it stand on the Journals that her Majesty had been degraded for adulterous intercourse, and still that she was not divorced. lie had no idea that the Bill would pass into a law. Lord HARROWBY supported the words. Lord ERSKINE observed, that the Noble Eatl had omitted some things which were true, and certainly he might conseat to the omission of those which were false. He considered the Pro test of her Majesty confirms/my evidence of her innocence; but if their Lordships were determined to think her otherwise, how could they deny she had been guilty of an adulterous intercourse and refuse to divorce her, ll—(Hear, hear). 'file preamble was Men carried, and the HO'lie proceeded to' discuss the Clauses. THE DIVORCE CLAI3ISE.This clause having been ( Lead, The Archbishop of YORK ruse . lie knew, he sai of no religious expediency that could justify any thing of thit sort.— Marriage was not a civil contract, but a sacral ordinance of reli gion, and he looked to the word of God as his guide in funning an opinion upon this case. He could nut therefore vote for the divorce. And yet, if the Home were to pass the Bill without the divorce, the monstrous spectacle would be exhibited of a King having foe his wife a degraded woman !—There was no possibi• bulky of avoiding this extremity, withodt throwing out the Bill altogether.—(Loud cries of hear, haat, hear.)-4t had been said that regard for public morals. and the interests of religion, re quired the Bill should pass. Much more would the public morals, and the interests of religion have been served, if the Bill had never tbeen spoken of—(Hear, hear., hear.)—Thor nauseous publica! lions would not have got into private society. It would be gra tifying io all goon men to hear mat the measure was tonally abandoned ; but it would be gratifying to the enemies of order to hear that it was persevered tn. fir concluded by praying to God that he might not have to deprecate the contiutianee of the Bill for the rest of his life. The Bishop of CHESTER said, he believed the Queen to be guilty; but be had voted for the second reading of the Bill, upon the understanding that the Divorce Clause, was to be laid aside, He should vote against that Clause, as he judged as lie would wish to be judged. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY considered the charge of adultery established against her lajesty, and, under that con viction, he had no objection of any description, least of all of a religious nature, to the Bill proceeding in the form in which i now stood. . The Ilishcy of WORCESTER admitted that the quitsition of the divorce was not without sonic difficulty; but, considering how much the morals of the country were concerned in the mama of this proceeding, he frlt bound to give his support to theßill. The Bishop of LLANDAFF thought the Divorce clause should be retained. He did not see any force in the objection made uo it on :i religious ground ; for he knew of nothing in the Christian religion against a dissolution of =thug.: fur adultery. The Bishop of LONDON agreed with his Right Reverend Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury,) that Uivorees were authorised by the words of our Saviour. As to any objection to the divorce clause of the Bill, founded on the supposed conduct of the complaining party, he thought it quite inapplicable. A great constitutional principle was involved in the present case. The King " could do nu wrong:" lie could not commit a fully, tar less a chino; aild Cier:fure, recrimination was out of the toes. Lion.—(Dear, heiti.,) Lord LAUD DADE. with due submis.sion to thc opinions which had l:illen fro:n the Reverend Bench of Bishops, toought that tie House ought not to agile- to the divorce clause. lye agm-.1 with what liar been so aWy urged on the subject by the subject by the Learned Doctor who had spoken for tile defence, (Dr. Luaningion.) that C:c law of iiiarri.ye was the battle with regard to the 111 ; 1116.st us to the lowest subject of the realm. If her Majesty shook' choose to sue for divorce, the application ought to b.r tried on t':e same lair el i de as the uhsany ordinary individual would be tried. 'Die Rev. Prelate who spoke 1::st, seemed to think, that if adultery was proved the divorce clatiae might lie prAetl, because ho facts had been paired against the huaaan.l. The divorce clause appeared to him to be inconsistent. Tile grotto:lJ on which he had voted fro the nicastirea were, that the t. ueul was found guilty of crimes which rendered her mint at the head of the of this country. lint the conduct of the !Cie.; atigat be suet as not to cat itle him to a divorce. Lord D.. 1 RN LEY said, nothing that lied fallen from the Rey Be.ieh of llishopa had any influence on his mind. A Reverend Prelate Ind said, there was nothing in the whole tizripture to prevent dimrce ; but Scripture say:, " lie that putte. away his wife, same for fornication, caus:th her a c.mnut atia..ery. lye appealed to the House, if the Qacait wis: put away by her and nut for the crime of turnicatioa, did he !nut cause her to walnut adultery f And if $.ll, and ..e came for a divorce, bow, they could their Lordships grant ;t ? lie felt that their Lorvbhipa could pass tine Bill, either with or %knout the di vote::. Lorl I tUSOl:;;III')It h: was sitrnis'A that the NoLle l•nrd (Latideiiiale) had ii;eo , °prow: ilivorze clause. lie wind not 1111 to that L. dttiot.utC of op:nion existed aiming I , e Bev. Bench of Bishops; hat the k ;r,..itvr numb e r them were unaNitootis. Th.! !louse ha.l tlclured that the gac.:n va„ net tit 0.• (2.icen con ,ort, and .heir Lordships ovied it to the cool:- try. .uid to tneW0111:11 of the country, that she should not con• thin:: the wife of the King. Th B' Jiop of Ili Essr En said, no coirVeration whatever would induce nun to pass the liLL with the divorce clause. Lent iTz wILLIAM wits in every rvipect against the mea • sure. lie expressed his surptise that the house should entertain the idea of a divorce, when it had not beta applied lot by either patty.—ilicar, lust.) • Lord LIVERPOOL said, that as he had observed before, he was ready to give up toe clause relating to the divorce. if the House thought it advisable to abandon that part of the measure. The LORD CHANCELLOR still, that if some dame were not introduced which would mo-t elfectually :,tyarate the part;es„ the Queen would be by the Bill, without the dtvorce, bound more closyly to his Majesty. Lord t)IJ NCA N said, the whole prac:aling; in that 110 , 133 weer ;;rounded un a conspiracy—Al-lea:, hear! Order ! Order!) IL. ronld lay hio hand ou his heart, and ftarlcaly say, before Got), that lie believed her MujeAy not guilty. Tile Earl of SHAFTH.7;IIUIt Y. the Chairman, then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again toonorrow.—Adjourned. TRIAL OF lllat MAJESTY. witusesuae, NOV. 8. • ' ' The Howe rebuined ',wee:dings this morning at te•n o'cl rc lc. Lord Beresiord (recently retained Irvin Portagal) took the °nail. Among the. absentees from illness were Lords; Hints, the Earl of airlimoon, and the Martinis of I lert for I. After application taut been made by several Peers for per 111 sign the pruteit av, , onst the BM, which ought to, hay, been done yestel day, the 114111ile resolved 611, :t Committee. AThe rchhi:hop of 'loam, the IS whops • I licterburisco and Chester, earls opposed the divorce clan r. Lord It ED LSI) ALL cu,.•nlered the iliarria;4e cootr.•••t rather a, a religious vow than as a civil contract, and there fore that it could not he ilissolsc.l. If it was a contract, it 'quight be. ilinsol vial by 1111 l tual consent of the parties. Auer it few remarks from low& Ausnn, ClirnaTVON Darn litteaborot4ll, &e. the Ifoiue resolsed itself taloa Cons : future on the Hill. Archhish.ip of TUAM.—" My Lords, it is with the ut most pain that I offer myself to the notice of your Lordships, which I should not have dune, hail it not beeu for the very direct maoiier iu which the body, of which I furor a part, were called upon by the Noble and Learned Lord who spoke last yesterday. My Lords, I will refer you to the 39d verse of the 3th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. My mind has long been made up to vote agtiost the divorce clause from that very verse, but if 1 can spew that the illustrious lady whose conduct has beau so lung under con sideration had been put away by her husband, it I also sbew from the holy scriptures a solemn denunciation (um the law against such putting away, then shall I sliew sufficient ground to induce me to Ville urainst the divorce clause, which would release the King from his marriage contrast, and leave him at liberty to marry again. That sects a put. ting away of the wife did take place is abundantly evident from the letter of the husband, to which alone I would beg leave to refer. The denunciation to which I hove alluded to is in the second chapter of tht Prophet Malachi, when for literally putting away 'a wife, the face of the Lord was turned away from the people, and he rag 'riled oat their offerings. The temple resounded with the lamentations of the womon ; and the Prophet established his charge against them as,ceyiug sin, by reminding them of the first institution of marriii4e. 'file God of Israel hall' said, he liateth all putting away ;" My Lords, I stand here a most unwilling judge is this cause, and I will candidly confess to your Lord ships, that nothing, but force and the heavy peoalties which your Lordships have atta •111.1 to ahs t ce, would have coin. pelted me to attend this distressing iovestigatiou. I Maya voted for the second reading of this Bill, because no other measure was before the House, in which I could declare that a clear, satisfactory, and irresistible case had been made nut of the guilt of the Queen. But as to this divorce clause, my Lords, I can never reconcile myself to give it my sanction; and if it goes out of this Committee as part of the Bill, I cannot give it my further support ; fur I would rather have the conduct of tar Queen is p unotbliccd, 10411 that a divorce should he added to her degradat tool. The iiis:sop or VC; ILEABOILOUtioII had never in his life entered into the examination of any question alto inure nosiety than hr hid as to whether the divorce clause shoo!: stand part of toe bill. Ile was iiklitklS that it should be omitted, although ha lead nu doubt of the legality of the clause. 'Ube ohjectioos were principally tit u religious nature; but marriage is Fth it civil us well us a religious tract and he thought these Civil rights might be sospended. lie was MA sulhcicuUy acquainted a oth forms of law to sug gest such a clause in a speoatie form, but as the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury had alluded to sum , thing of the saw. sort esterday, he would leave it in his h nods. The Archbishop of l'Olt K said, iw an advocate for the sanctity of the marriage cootroet, and th reciprocal obli gations which resulted from that unera, he could not recon cile to his conscience, under alt the circumstances of the pcesent case, nil vote for inz divorce clause. Lord REULSDA LE was of opinion that the divorce sirould be retained, us its operation extended to the legiti notion of children. It the clause was given up, he would he glad too know what was to be substituted, which world not hove the elre,:t of a divorce, however it might ll.' killk , ll The LOUD CHAN:A.:ILO:I said, in co.juittaioal ismth leis Nook Friend (Lord Liverpool), he Dad pledged, himself out to press the clause, if there seemed to be a Iltliff'o+4oll aganost it in the U tou• •. If their lalkdalsiiis should Ihiul. plover too limit the diviner clause, another einschuent certainly most he introduced, of a siauitiir t cudency, other. ise the ponies vs °old be 11 , 1tillll inure closely together thou evi . r. `.l.iirti:s of I..‘NSI)O E pi utesied it,.taiiist the re co,oution of any ;iron - wit: which itermtled a %militia to ex.st as the st.fent the h.it.4 w.tLcot Lwi.ig like cum.°, t in the a ealm.—(Hcar, Itrar, hear, ht. to 1 .) --Ile tilt the ohj , ctorue tutt,:e It) wale ul the Leatated Plel.tleb, hat he cooltl 'hot shut tiis e1( . 3 to tie great State S.:tjeetwas to their v,e 4' of the quest too. After h tviii admitted, that such a mode of pros, ethog nes due to the K iug 43.1 the Cowl , cy,k, to•gged the.i lati . dslops to comidcr the sitnattois of the the even: of uni.t,ting the clause. Her Alaje-ty would he 418. p. pelf u. nil Itle der', ittle fro!ti acr Cli•lnleter 4, 4 blibject 1./ 1111 the Jt,atishti s 1.1 %hid) 1/.IC Lnl reeo red, and at the store ismr he exintsed to the authority of hmliand , whine she eats thin iv, d of has protectiou,—( I Itatr,, heai.)— Re felt it irii,t iy tu declare, th toe eintlitleta.4l the disuse inherent its the 11111, tunt of nect,y , ary consequence that the nicasute must pa, as It lista, or he exetweil to the introduction of ill . ; 1/1 . 1110211: WlUlllitl:CS M hill N !itch it ;daddy isticaiii,o , a.—( II ear, hear t ) Lora Is !mid, h felt Into.elf la a ttiluati at of ruth r an est. attedito tr) ktaa upott the quest ttttt a.w the thatts,•, ltiett , telly pat tietietted still' hint its Vial reelitt:. looking 10 the the cao.iln,h,: coal I IRA br a s:.. by reports which had imadi need tutu rospecolly, the conduct of the t4neem lle coisfessed that he had the a enkneds to thine reports. Indeed it wn, impossible for ter him to have duue Other Sae ; 101, at the period to a his h he had alluded, it Was said that the Queen had b.tu gaity of the greatest indecencies, rut with Bergami, but with otheihiersons; that her at Blarkheath had been (Eve oaitiovnilapi ire P",:e 366.3 563 ..-••I,