The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-08 00:00:00

awe"' tirOr di •orris• the anird l A ,ndt ,d se" F.3rl, 1 the F Dir votl 4l e ed t' t d Ell ,( I)t' 114" J toittA r t ite • _ last, 11:e xilig' the f t 10 11 . :311v0 ti!g. 11 ' satni• , t lo of i t►,e bs,:f" vcr/ ngli 4 (1; 01 4 facia' nto- catr e or °wit sct rive e uli- )1 01}1 1113 41 it ilia d ( 11° ht pa rt • ct-' vort o Glrrk read! as bet e t D o. S the" eani rceif 36111' 11 be d 3 a" Ithg ethe r re" ilt col?' onsr' ce "1 rd to heel her- 0 , csep c , tilts , s re , Ott t had otiC e I t UP• hog , f ale foilsO cde 3 f no Nisi 4 , .... N i• ,. 111 ekpedi e n e y t h at could justify any t hi ng of th;ft arirt - . f 4 r ~; ir ige was not a civil c on t r a c t, but a sacred . ordinance .fused Von, end he look e d t o t h e wor d o f G o d as h is guide in . s c'te f ng ' alt °Pinion Upon this case. He could net therefore t „, w ur the Divorce. And y e t, if 'the House were to pass the ..ill',1). ittteldmourt tahe Divorc, he mostrosspectacle would be King hav i n g for his wife u s a degraded woman : thr e r .. e . was no possibility of avoiding this extremity without h ea ,rug out the Bill altogether—(loud cries of hear, hear, a „.,__ )---He. felt no hesitation in yesterday giving his vote his the Bill ; but he must declare, if called upon to give Z°,P',ion in his judicial situation, that he.mnst be under It se val nful necessity of saying guilty to the charges. It had relitsaid, that regard for public morals, and the interests of Wo g i ' d gn ti ' required . that the Bill should pass. Much more b een It Public murals, ancLthe interests of religion hare lie s i: s r e eds. if the Bill had never been spokep of—(bear, .gof i' ‘ lea r I )—Those nauseous publications would not have ime...nto private society. If would be gratifying to all good . ~,o ur y _, o hear that the riseaS'ore was totally alindoned;'but it , te a " be gratifying to the enemies of order to hear that it ~:,Persevered in.' He concluded, by praying to God that he Ih,, lit not have ta deprecate the continuance of the Bill fur Jest of his life. e tiii t t 'e Ilishop of CHESTER said he believed the Queen to he e pto Y: but he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, lai d a flit understanding that the Divoree Clause was to he as h e sid e• He should vote against that Clause, as he judged . ti . rihe a r‘ o r e c i i a li, „ i . siish iir ofbecj.uNdFrei.d,:ithußy said, that if the qnes tist,„!sss whether divorces res. vineulo matrinsonii were e ;" ,,,, , with the word of God? he felt bound to answer, that te ' s ' t i e e re• He must tell their Lord-hips, that they were.di ',elf' Tl'l expressly declared to be lawful. he onrSaviitur him inSti„eY were certainly not authorised by the Cansuris,aud la w of ',`,'"us of the Established Church, norby the COII . IIITOTI :In soc,",e land. But why so ? Marriage lies at the foundation of It h ad f ety, arid forms one (Jibe first principles of social order. i u tt (peen the object of all States to protect it by every means statipir power front dissolution: Divorces had, notwith- N.,, ln g, ()centred, both before and since the.-Reforination. sser,rrre, notwithstanding, consonant both with the Mosaic list : I , l ' th e' Christian' dispensation. Our Saviour had said, 'atilt, 4 "e Who putt etleawav,his wife for any. ether cause than 'iss u :Ys taaseth her to commit adultery.' Did not this oh tled e Vnfer that .diyorces were allowable ? His Grace con 'll'Abls,:Y s "Ying, that he considered the charge of adultery ' 4 ' le l ed against her ;Majesty, Rad, under that conviction, firms ns, subjection of any description, least of all of a reli s„,,,' u eture, to the Bill Proceeding in the form in which it stie s I Ti , „..' • 'f t' it /1 1 ' 14 T of WORCESTER admitted, that the question fa g le_-,vorce was not Wit hoot ' some di ff iculty ; but, consider lb, 1 1" w much the moials of the country were concerned in. to ils:lt. o f this proceeding, he Telt hound to give his support kork e ."'il• [We understood this to be the purport of his e l th e i i i rs observations,.but he spoke iii a tone so i naudib l e Th e ‘ . r, that we cannot : vouch for its accuracy..3 l. • jut 'Le to 11 'sitep of LANDAFF thought the sbser ce tie i , ' lie retained He did. not see - any force in the 05...1, unlade to it On a relig ious ground; for he-knew.of nothing ss!,o;e (liristian religion against a dissolution of marriage for, I ‘l, er a*, ' • - L oth t ' s hop , of LONDON agreed with his Right-Reverend. ,'elliZ r ( the Archbishop of Canterbury), that divorces were Il i , - ''ed by the words of onr Savioar. As to any objection rtedut" biv orce'Clanse of the Bill, founded on th . e . supposed ;' i t. c . t t • of the complaining party, he thought it inapplicas 'Ns t .,;: -great constitutions:l principle was involved in the 'IR ~ '"ase.-e-The King '"Teu/s/ de no wrung;" he could t,i,,,,iebait a folly, far less a crime; and, thelefore,.recrinsi- T h was Out o f the question.-.-(Hea'r, hear !) ''';', s' i e Earl of LAUDERDALE coeld not refrain from oh -14 1 'ii With all due respect for the Right lime. Prelate, .that ' Ile fir,o,uuds on which be had founded his vote for omitting ' '`" j ' e lee Clause had been much mis-stated. Did he (Lord vii' d iii a "it that -the King should 1w deg raded :". No; those It i el '' Sc h te tu t d grade e himwho said, thatto . omit.' that t t :)ause At. (44 e deny him all relief. The montage contract ) gave l i 'ivie, e eu certain public rights and privileges; tint those , ( 1, 441 1 . es were connected with concomitant duties. In these 4 'er.Ceen proved that her Majesty had failed. • He was, • ' , s ew tes willing to consent to that. part of the Bill which ~es I s de Prive her of those •pubiie rights and privileges. But i!li k ; nu that account to say, that there should be two kinds S's • t . " - t un c for the King and the Other for his • subjects?— r the -le marriage law of the country should remain the same ; 14 ' 1 s j9ug as for a subject. The Right Reverend Prelate 'ry .w. . that the King could do no Wrong. But adul -14.11 is not a crime in this country, according. to the law ii -4 e r , a l' ,l; ali 'i• That _late only required . that the man. seek '‘';lll ,: s ','''rce should not himself have been accessary to • the rse te „ . •" In the Ecclesiastical Law he • understood that 't 1,:,, 1 Y was described as a peccatum, and not a crime; and d i ed uo difficult in saying that the same law shoulel he ap kaa n '' the Sovereign as to the subject. Tlieir Lordships il j 4. 4ait - 7, Pass the Divorce Clause, were such a Bill as the I ,ll ere vu.efore them in a private case, and they coald not pass t'ess ! t hottl. the ordinary proceedings in all divorce: cases. - Iflit a ' I ndeed they meant to say, that one of the s less ties ta il pool as as he i pleased,and yet be entitled to the relief which e i Ne s t (i t''Y granted • the y -went into proof that he was en- , t'il,"lll,l:reitc• Tltislt ‘ e ‘l e ' v et i s isielered would belllljllSt ill the Qfwen, t.se,el for e he could not agree to it. The Noble . Lei d con- ' Ole si i Y expressing his.astonishment at the opinion of , v wt.Prelaie, who thought this divorce sanction . ed, by , v ii to p„ It ; ' He could not give his assent to that doctrine. . t r - h e u th'e 4l " DARNLEY said, that his mind was not cluing e'pei the tl s libject, in consequence of what he had Scrip eard tc's t - Ise n i ck of Bishops, thatthere was nothing in the Scrip .e p eve _. ,• . , ~ • ei . e et . us a me ince lit this case. He was of oinion that 4 4 ti ss „' ' He that putteth away his wife L ualess i t be for for. 'hill,. h e ' r e inseth her to commit adultery,. was ; 4 , e i aud a sufficient ground for resisting : the . divorce. c• it Mee news had been put away. Was it for fornication, and , us e h not, did not her husband, agreeably to t he .Scripture . s, h r ( sl igh e , ti r t ° commit adultery ? Could their L urdsh i pstimen, cn tl 'sa t s Point of view, grant the relief now asked ? Butt he t t , s 4s e ti t „,ey could neither pass the Bill with nor without the te . l ' , l i ‘ t vit . i i() ':;'. with it, as it was contrary to the.Go . sp t e ue l; K a i t r t ig d l it, as they could not degrad e the wif e ot I t t i.N h e yin f tZ e i it divorce, UfIICSS they meant to render that t s i t a % te. ) we e Ou s• Queen she must remain, and surrouni . ei , 4ishi e . e • with difficulties, the sooner they gut rid .of this de 'l.'he bliteasure the better. e i t i 4 de $:. l l . °P of LONDON explainedahe text quoted by th e c s , the ` The putting away had no reference to desertion Part th e rc liegq the husband ; it meant a written divorce, ac -4 li g h ti ,site Mosaic law; and the purport waS clearly, that li• n 'eral was a political separation, it was not sufhcient in ''4al wi ,l:Cent to admit of the woman's taking a second hus ni,flie lauolut committing adultery. A te hi s ; ,of DONOUGHMORE expressed some surprise ri o - e n. sa t t"le Friend (the Earl of Lauderdale) had ,not re, f cea fled with the opinions which had been, pro- Ili e B e i„ n ,P9n the question of divorce by the Reve . 4p,,,. ' 4 ga r ,V of Bishops. He ridiculed the gravity of tust ' '" i kiilit t -ent cf his Noble Friend respecting , the • re ; k i th e et Y for_ debt. to which he had ailuded. . I his was l'i t 't h a d : e , of an individual seeking for relief. The t 'e Stat -s i'ed for merelief except as head of the State.— li t t t ' i efs ne e t' t t i hei r.Lordships, and the Ministers . bad solicited ss ii e feeli n ,, ie ,Kuig. His Lordship was of opinion that too tu - s a ge the e t "ad been manifested for the Illustrious Per et'old h„ -- ghout these proceedings. If the Queen was fi t , ti,eteedin— s 'thation, after all that had been proved, their ta ,) ,.; th!,,, nn st go for nothin , . They had only wasted fifty Ici'''ons 4e-t-• val e able time to n '' o purpose. He thought those l 'O r rs lia m e e d • w rougly who bad presumed to introduce the i i - egrad e , : Hi this proceeding.. He did not wish royalty to th e e a teasu ° there was too much of that feeling out of . doors. tit s , S tat e • re had been introduced for the relief of lii i " th e re nd all he asked, and that was not much, was tue l : l Y to n edY should he given in the manner least e t '4 ‘,„.Prejuidice its character. The House had declared th t t ed h e " e `es that it conceived the Queen to have ren °Wl e weP if unfit for the rank of Queen Consort ;• and h e ed i t to t . t to t hemselves, they owed it to the women, they eiTl:outirlue(dhe character of the country, that she shoul d . not li Sl (4 the in the character of the wife of the King- - Every ei4i. } seen ..riajetrity must have been of opinion that adultery Lett " the ir ell; and several of the minority had also de- Pe t :rahi, p e° nYictio tt of flue same. Amongst those was the ha r t 't to sl i re late, the Archbishop of York, whir, thongh op the, exp res e s . niaielity on the question of the second yearling, a..ight i t " ins opinion that the Queen was guilty, yet t i l.°Th e i w as not justifiable that she should he divorced. he lit tri g terraption having been given to the Noble Lord 4 4a id, ;;P ee eb by calls of "O d er" arid " Questions" these w h o those interruptions were disgraceful only. to w el ls ' with s us . ed them, and for his own part he treated Ore e "ht r e ( " er eign contempt.) This Lady, shento ti e d g ti n t r the station of Queen Consort ; had been Ive 4 her sq . ! el ' adultery, and to let her re-main Queen, 11 4 ° b e t . ( inter t o his Majesty, t o give him no relief, euttifselin_s r u n a nifest a great di sregard, he wou l d not say to but, .ority6l,_!lli Majesty, because they had neen told from s it ,4i sl it , ir. °I. his 'Majesty h a d no f ee li ng on t h e subject' , h ert u's aia;.°‘vit consistency. . With respect to the feelings ps,,,Usta a r : , s t3's he must say, that he believed there never 1, 4 i e s tye t i ps blic' pri eedii of such moment, of such im tiet'l,4-4erias,",,_s in which all7person so directly interested L t :', 4 , 1 4‘ v , 4 t.."lttle forward a r pkrt. He did not, if he might 'at r eoit ': use the exp , ecsion, he did not care what might gs of that Illustrious, Person- - ---be did not view this measure with and relation to thost feelings. •God farhia that either lie, or the Ministers, or that douse, should ever lend themselves to any such feelings; but as a State measure, he thought the blouse should pass the whole Bill. ' In giving this opinion he acted not according to the feelings of the King, but according to his own. It was as a State mea sure that he had voted for the fill, and he thought it ought to be passed altogether; for in what situation would they stand, if, after agreeing that the preamble hail been proved, they should refuse to pass the Divorce Clause ? The Bishop of CHESTER said, that the Noble Lord who spoke last having stated that the whole of the Bishops, except the venerable Prelate (the Archbishop of York) who had so ably expounded the ecclesiastical law of marriage, agreed in the propriety of the divorce clause, be felt himself called upon to declare, that by no consideration whatever could he, con- - sistently with the dictates of hit conscience, be. iuduced to vote for this Bill with the divorce clause. The Earl of HARROWBY, after what had passed in the House the other day, begged permission to offer a very few ob servations. lie was of opinion, that the teje'ction of the clause would not heattended with the ill effects anticipated by the Noble Earl, and that was one of his grounds for con senting to omit it. He had originally t fraught that its intro duction might lead to giving the Bill a different aspect from its real one, and cause it to be misrepresented as a Measure . of private relief, instead of a State measure, which it was.— It was for this reason that he wished the Bill to be con structed without this clause, and he was now strengthened in his view of the question by the great diversity of jtsdg ment which prevailed upon it in every quarter. He sug gested that instead of a divorce a vimotto matrintonii, , their Lordships might substiture a separation limited in some respects, and !note suited to the particular case before them. • For they all knew by a letter that had been produced, that a complete separatissu between the parties. had taken place 9.4 years ago. This had. since been. recognized by an Act of Par liament; and as no individual under similar circumstances could obtain a divorce at that Bar, he was clearly of opinion that a.departure from the Scriptural doctrine arid pi active of the Country ought nut to take place in the present instance. There might he overwhelming grounds of State policy for such a step, but here he did not see them, arid' therefore in this particular case he would not do that which he would re fuse to do in every other. For these reasons he was hostile to the clause remaining part of the Bill. Earl FrrzwlLLl AN! spoke in so tow atone that the only argument we could gather in his speech was that it would be inexpedient, and was unnecessary to separate man and wile in is case allele neither of them called for it. The Earl of LIVERPOOL recalled to their Lordships' at tention the state-merits of his•opinion upon this branch (tithe question which he had made nt former periods. On the 19th of August, when urging them to proceed•to the - Bill on the • grounds of public justice, he had distinctly declared that it . was a misrepresentation to describe it as a measure of per !sonal relief. So far from that being consistent with troth, he had avowed that lie' was prepared; in the event of an opinion being largely expressed to that effect, to say that it ought not to 'stand, and that he seas prepared to' give it' up altogether. He bad delivered the same sentiments at a subsequent'period, and' they' remained unaltered. But his opinion was not. to bias the judgment of any.NOble Lord in. this or in any other part of the case. On the contrary, he had distinctly , avoided all privatecommunications'whatever on the subject.—(Hear, hear!)—He had resisted personal inter- . course on the question. From a' sense of his public duty lie had come down to their Lordships' House to discharge his functions publicly.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—acrd' no private in fluence or intercourse of any , kind had he' ever permitted to warp any opinion even of those nearest to him.—(Shouts of hear.)—From the first' and now, he sincerely wished their judgment to be founded on their honest conscientious opinitinss and no Noble Lord in 'that House was ever influenced by him—(Hear, hear!)—The Noble Earl then turned to the particular point under consideration. He had never looked at this •Bill as whin of - divorce. It was a public measure, and not sine of private relief. Even supposing•thrt stresig case of a young King and Queen, with the succession to the throne• imp-heated in such a proceeding, still he felt that it niust'he a public : measure. Noble Lords-argued as if it'were impossible to degrade the Queen without following that degradation by a divorce, unless they meant to throw odium - upon the King. But -lie did not think them borne out in this conclusion. He could, on the other hand, readily suppose many• cases' in which the reverse was the natural consequence. He could. suppose, for example, that a Queen of England Was guilty of felony'---a crime that - would be sufficient - to operate her devastation and it separation from her husband: But felony on the part of one (tithe parties was no sufficient ground for a divorce, which was granted for the crime of 'adultery alone.— Every Christian • wOuld, perhaps; agrees that a•• divorce founded upon a dissolution of the marriage contract could not be• had for any 'utlier eritue than that of • adultery ; yet was possible lin* a Mall. to sayi the Queen might not commit other crimes so oetrasseous as to require degra dation ? If divorce was allowed' by tire law. of God, surely the ..consequence of degradation, as applied to divorce, was correct punishment. The Noble Earl said he was not pre sumptuans enough to give silty opinion on the religious part of the question. If he were to give any opinion of that des cription, it would be the opinion' of the Right Rev. Nletropo litan of this Metropolis, namely, that divorce was allowa hie by the laws of God and the Church for adultery, and that recrimination was. not a part of the law of God, but an institution imposed by men, as springing out of the law and' right in justice, to• prevent the party coming into Court without s fair appeal. He knew that a large body of the members of the Established 'Church entertained doubti on this question: His Lordship did • not say he agreed • iu those doubts,,but Ire could not exclude' (hens .from observa tion. It certainly was not on the law of God, that a party could recriminate, and 'with 'respect to the Sovereign, they could not permit recrimination consistent with his era- racter of King, They could not , make the conduct of the Sovereign amenable to the ordinary Tribunals. Under all the considerations, was there a person who could say, that • in a case of indecency and indecorum, the King of this' court try could have no divorce? There was :mother misun derstanding on the subject. Innumcrable calumnies had been circulated against his Majesty by persons who knew not the circumstances connected with both sides of the question. The calumniators considered themselves secure in their as sertions, because it was not easy to answer calumnies spring tug from circumstances which occurred a long time back, mid ' capon which it washard for any individual to form a judgment. • They heard the complaints" on one side, and - mit the complaint' on the other. He did not state this to bear hard our her Ma jesty, but his Lordship would again say, that unless the indi ' viduals were acquainted with all the circumstances of which they were ignorant, they were not justified in their charges of criminality. All the circumstances were not known, but the House knew than,--a separation had exist ed between the King Ford Queen for the space of twenty-s four years, which was sanctioned by his late Majesty, and con firmed by Act of PaHiarnent. They knew there had been something extraordinary in the separation, and he might. ask their Lordships whether, under the circurnstances•of se paration for so* many years, it was a case for them to go to the extent of dissolving the marriage, leaving the parties .at liberty to marry again? He did not sue that question in the point others did, but he could not avoid giving the argument against dissolution of marriage all the weight it deserved.' Independent of many !considerations connected with the ex pediency of a dissoltniOn of marriage, a strong religious feel ing Oil the subject appeared-to pervade .a great part of " the. com munity, and•there was no doubt it was better to leave the question.untouched. If that question was to heconte the sub ject-of debate, his - Lordship - , speaking fur himself, rather wished the enactment respecting divorce to be put out -olthe Bill. He should then introduce a clause; authorizing and confirming the separation. Such a clause would be a distinct feature of tire - BillLdist Met. from the clause of divorce-silis inlet in its operation and effect, and on thataccount it would b e c ome th e subject of their Lordships' consideration. 'Rey would decide whether it was calculated to prevent the incon veniencies•which might arise from the Queen's situation. The Noble Earl concluded by observing, that he had ven. turgid to say thus much in the ! discharge of a painful duty. Th'e LORD CHANCELLOR said'he had attended Divorce' causes' in that House many years, and must 'be supposed to have some experience in divorce matters. Sir W. Blackstone, in his Commentaries treated 'marriage . merrly,as a civil con tract, but he never could bring his mind to consider it so.' It was a religious contract. - It was •nott he child of the law, but she parent. The beginning of the foundation—" In c m ipio • verbo fienditentiim , societatis. The EcclesiastiCal Law saki, those whom God hath put together.• let no man put asunder. It was plainly, 1 berefore, a religious coot; act, and no Man could put away his wife unless metes minds were divided on religious subjects. His opinion was, that it was a civil contract in some •cases, .but unless the Ecclesiasti.' cal Law was of 110 avail it was a religious contract. It was civil only with respect to public rights: Divorces a ciaculo .matrinzonii were' unknown to the 'civil laws, but• Parliament had been in the habit of interposing to give relief in cases where neither the common law our Ecclesiastical late •would apply ; 'and the principle on which their Lord . - ships acted, was to look at the proceeding, as a -matter of public expediency. Down to the peri•al 1795, they had no Standing Order that a person applying fur a Divorce Bill, should bring his proceedings from the 'Ecclesiastical Court. In 1795, the House made that Order-that the person might prove the ground of divorce. They laid it dower as a genes ral rule, that they would never grant the extraordinaryrc. lief sought fist by the parties, unless they had the means of knowing whether the parties were intitfed to relief or not.-- , They said you shall satisfy the Ecclesiastical Court before you come to the HOUse of Lords for a liivirice a vincalo matrinzonii. This was done with a view to the expediency of public morals, and if so the'Noble and, Learned. Lord beg ged leave to say, on the gobject of recrimination, • he had not been able to find any authority in the Bible, which stated that a Woman who had comMitted adultery waS to he consider ed innocent because her husband did the same thing. They had however to protect the iniblic intirals,and they' said When a man had forfeited • his own obligations as a husband, ,he should not come and complain of breach of ditty in his wife ; but there was only tine instance in Which their Lordships granted a divorce to a woman, who applied in the way of re crimination, and that was Mri.Alistin's case. Theii•LortlihiPs in that instance also relaxed a general rule with respect to bringing an action. The woman could bring no action agilinst her sister, who was the adulteress in the cast , . The House went further, and they said its :Bather instance, if there had been a separation, in which both parties had given rep their duties, there should be no divorce. " God forbid tbat should be a general rule (said the Noble and Learned Lord), because any woman might make it impossible fur a man to live with his wife, and after separation; having &leen him to the act, there would be no relief for him—no divorce."— That House could only say, a man should not take MiVan tage of his own bad faith to his wife, A Noble Lord in' the Gallery appeared to think the House could not proceed unless kthere had beets an application front his Majesty; and another Noble Lotd had said it was impossible to. go oil, because they would have to tender the Bill to his Majesty. - - His answer to that was, in eases of adultery his Majesty must unavoidably gore his consent to such a Bill in the ordinary way. What would have been the case, if the case had been high treason, and that a-conVictiOn had taken place ? The divorce could not take place in that event without execution, and the act of the King was indispensably necesskry to the Performance of that. The Noble' Lord' then contended, that if some clause were not introduced which would most effec tually separate the parties, the Queen would be by the Bill, without the divorce, bound more closely to his Majesty.— ' Many Noble Lords had voted for tite seCutid reading of the Bill, and they could not suppose they were to find her Majesty guilty, and there stop. They had come to consider the truth. of the preamble- of, the Bill, which no man Who voted for the second reading could doubt. With regard to the enactment, lithe whole were agreed to, her Majesty would be divorced a vincula matrimonii, which deprived her of all ' rights and,privileges; but if there was no divorce a vinculo malrimomii, the House most go on to say in what respect those rights and privileges were to be taken away—Whether it was the Archbishop of Canterbury. sitting in one seat,: or ' the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other side the House, who , entertained particular opinions respecting. the Bill, the public interest required the privileges and rights of the Qui-en/0 he clearly understood. The-Queen, as afemniecoveil . and a subject, had power which nu woman had; as a fentmt sole she could give'and take without the King. She was by law a person of independent property, and her claims would be more powerful if not 'cot away by this Bill. If they took away the-establishment as Queen, and left her mere)) , the King's wife, she would possess more advantages than any othet woman. They would in that casetake away the King's rights and place her in a better condition. The Noble Lord, after having-repeated hiveonviction of the Queen's guilt, said be would reserve his opinion as to the retaining or omitting the Divorce Clause until lie should hear the sentiments of many Noble Lords, and he trusted he should hear the - sentiments of /he whole House expressed in some other way than by the words Content or Not Content. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the House should adjourn.to to-morrow-morning. The Marquess of LANSDOWN said he opposed the Bill in geio, but he did not' conceive himself bound by any decisiOn of yesterday. Lord DUNCAN observed, that he would not let pass the present opportunity of making a few observations. Ile was decidedly of opinion that this was a foul conspiracy of sub ornation and perjury. " It is," said the Noble Lord, " a conspiracy so foul and so profligate, that I for one feel no he sitation in putting my hand•tO my heart, and pronouncing, conscientiously and before God, a verdict of—Not Guilty"— (Cheers.) The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that as the question was to go off to to-morrow, the regular course was, that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Earl GROSVENOR said,', the first'question to be put was, " that this clause stand part of the Bill." The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that an adjournment boa brew moved. The CHAIRMAN•(the Earl of Shaftesbury) said he could not, their Lordships being in Coluthittee, put 'the question that the Home do adjourn. The usual form was to more that the House do tesnme, and then to more the adjournment. The question was then put, that the House do resume, and reported that the 6 ' Contents" had it—(Cries of °' the Non- Contents bare it.") —A division was called for, and the H o us e waft partially cleared of strangers, but their Lordships did not divide.—Adjourned at - Four n't_ lock. THE LONDON JOURNALS. [DAILY EXTRACTS FROM THE MORNING PAPERS.] [Morning Post.] THE QUEEN. —The Bill of Pains and Penal ties was yesterday committed. Previously to their Lordships going into the Committee, Lord Dacre read and presented a Protest from the Queen, one part of which is so lamentably solemn, that we sincerely. regret its appearance. There is certainly nothing new in her Majesty's assertion of her innocence ; for she had fre quently before made open declarations to the same cifect. But she then gave the public to understand that •she had ample' means" of prOviiia ' her inno cence to the satisfaction of the world. For thiS Purpose, being provided with'unlirnited pecuniary resources, she caused numberless persons to be brought from the Continent to disprove the testi mony of the witnesses for the prosecution ; but instead of doing_this, the most credible of her Majesty's Witnesses fully substantiated all the main charges, and confirmed the most' damning of 'the alledged facts. Still, however, it was ex pected that Countess Oldi, Iklariette, Sacchini, Hieronymus, and . others, whorn . her Majesty's Counsel had stated would speak immediately to various other tremendous circumstances, would be called. If there were any falsehoods asserted respecting the pillows, the sleeping in Bergami's room, the crying of the child in consequence•of the absence of the Queen, the disgusting trans action in the travelling carriage, the tent scene at Jerusalem (that of the •polacre admitted of no disproof after the " gallant" HoWnam's confir mation of it), and other dreadful facts, Oldi, Mariette, &c., who were present on all the oc casions, alluded to, would have satisfied the Pub lic respecting ,them. Why, therefore, were they not called ? They were all at' Brandenburgh House ; and it is really insulting to common sense any longer to talk of innocence, when the, only persons who could give semblance of proof were withheld by her Majesty herself and the subtle Counsel who had 'undertaken the desperate' task of her 'defence. In proteSting against the proceedings - of - the House of • Lords, the Queen alleges that Peers have given their voices against her; w he were absent 'on her de fence. Now, it so happens that 'only one Pear of, this description voted for the second reading of,the Bill (and his Lordship has amply justified his conduct in this respect); while another voted against the Bill, who acknowledged that he had net had the same opportunities of making himself master of the subject The Insinuation against the Members of the Secret Committee (ones if not more, of whom have voted against the Bill) is really unworthy even of the intemperance of Mr-..l3rougham, and cannot'lle justified up"ori aiy gentleManlsy or honoUrable - principle ; and the Protest, on the whole, is of so extraordinary, not to say outrageous a description; that their Lord . ships. have conceded much in suffering it to be received, even with the qualifiCation of the ex pression of their disapprobation of its exception able matter. [The Time's.] The cause of that plurality, which it is dc- knOwledged is too small to be sent dOWn to the House of Commons, was in Part explained yesterday : it is, in fact, a Ministerial majority in the House of Lords, with these circum stances in addition—that it has been procured by such exertions as were. never yet used to obtain a-majority in either House, and that the object aimed at is the destruCtion of the Queen of England—a person, above all others, from her sorrows, her wrongs, her gallant cOurage, and lofty mind, most peculiarly dear to the British Nation. " This woman," to use the language of a Noble and Learned Lord, " has, in the Strict and legal sense of the word, been aksiis'sfrittted for more than twenty-five years." She has been pur sued by wretches, not armed with poison and daggers, like the emissaries of " the Old Man of the Mountain," but-with falsehood and perjdriei aimed at her head for so long a time ; and this is all the- advantage which has been gained against her (surely there must be a peculiar Providence shielding her round)—that, in a Court where her Accusers sit along with her Judges . , a majo rity of only 28 out of 118 Members has been ob tained. We again say that human purity was . never subjected to such an ordeal. Suppose charges of six years' standing were now brought against any , other female, the most virtuous in these realms, framed by a secret commission, ex tracted from witnesses who were feeed to watch .her every action ; is' it credible that such a female, but. by some peculiar dispensa tion of Providence could by any possibility disprove so much as has been disproved by the Queen of England? Who recollects What . they were doing. from six to three years ago ; where they were; how they slept ;- by Nv horn they. were surrounded? But, above all, who can' makeothersrecollect these' circumstances, each having in his-own case his own particular affairs to occupy the first place in his memory and attention ? There was a finessing used yester day which we should not have expected in so grave a cause, and which cruelly,.exhibited the affair as a mere party. conflict. The divorce clause was so objected to, that we have no doubt it will be ultimately omittetL But why did the Lord Chancellor decline giving any opi nion on the point, calling for that of the lead ing Lords of- the Opposition ? Why, Lord Grey, Lord Lansdown, and the rest, have declared the charge to be in their opinion unproved. How, then, can. they vote for the divorce as the con sequence of:a refuted imputation ? But Ministers' assured the House, that unless' the " evidence carried conviction to the bosom of' every plain and reasonable man," the Bill ought to be given up. Where is the accomplishment of this pro mise ? It has not carried conviction to the bosoria of Noble Lords above-mentioned; to scores in the House of which they are. Members, and millions out of . it. Arebot Lords Lansdown and Grey 'reasonable men ? [New Times.] The relative Majority and 'Minority may. be• estimated in two ways, according as the question is referred to the nature of the Bill, or to the conduct of the Queen. It is true that the second yeading of the Bill was carried only-by . a majority of 28, because many opposed it on grounds of' policy or expediency, though they. avowedly be lieved the Queen to be guilty ; whereas not:a single vote could possibly be giVen for the Bill but on a!perfect 'Conviction 'of her guilt. Of near thirty Peers who have spoken, not above two or three bave . distinctly declared her Majesty free from blame;. and there is little doubt but that if the proceeding had.been of a natureto demand - a sentence of guilty or not guilty, she must have been condemned by a majority of three to one. It has been'objected that some Peers voted without having been present at the whole of the proceed . • lugs. This happened to Lord Ashburton, who voted a g ainst, well as to two or three Peers, who voted for e the Bill; but they had a perfect right So to do; they 'would have had that right had the question been purely a judicial one, much more as it was legislative. how could Hastings's trial have been deterrilined had . no Peer voted who did not regularly attend threughout the whole seven years ? In the present case,' the Peers who were casually kept away by illness or other wise,.carefully studied the evidence, and if they lost Mr. Denman's laW or his Greek, they lost what they were not at all bound to acquire, and What if they had acqUired it would have been pf very little value. The votes of the Reverend Vrelates have been objected to by those whose objections to the Prelacy lie much deeper. Out Of 30 Member S -of that Venerable Bo'dy only 12 voted of these one half, from age or present eminence, can have nothing to look for from an v earthly PatrOn: and it must_ be remembered that the Archbishop of York, who on conscien cious' scruples oppOsed . the Bill, Confessed him self it the - same tithe persuaded of her Majesty's Criminality. [Morning ChronidO.] Are not thoSe whO immediately encircle the Throne alarmed? Is not the general Aristocracy of the Country in danger, when the fountain of all its honours. is about to be polluted ? Once bring the King into contempt by a recorded Act of one of theconstitnent Parts of the Constitution, it will be no consolation then to say, we thought in the multitude of CounSellors there was much wisdom. The fool tossed to. and fro by every gust of passion—the man who prefers the'com. plaCency of the moment to the next hour's certain good—he • who thinks to qpiet his conscience because he had not courage t o act justly in the first instance, will deter. mine, that the Queen of England, though not a fit wife for a common subject, is good enough for