The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-09 00:00:00

elf he in honour bound. that if the general impression were against the Divorce ('lto se, he wtssf'd not support it, and though his h... 1 jotlement as to the Clause was,_ that it remain, it was not his intention to press it on their Lordships. Lle could not say, that after giving this point the fullest consideration, he concurt ed in the - opinion that mar t iage was nether a religions vow than a religious coutract. Jo his opinion, marriage was not only a religious, but a civil contract, and a religions vow also--(hear! ) --In truth, it was religioo, which, after adopting it both as a vow and acontract, made it a civil cnnt tact in addition: but be !mist say, that it the *lli voi te Clouse were omitted; it was quite impossible that the Pill should be let stand with merely the clause of degra dation—them !;.—There most-be some further Clause devis ed to a concluding enactment. to accord with the rlatiSe eldt . ,:rAd.ti , M—O'Ctlr.!)—Ttw first.. enactment. did in effect frothing without ,som- corollary. If the 111,601 . 4 y of their 1-ordshirs should lie of that the' Divot et. ('laro;.e ou ght ,to.rentain, 11,. n of course there was an end to the difficulty: hot if, on thr cot,trarv, yielding to the religions scruples of som e , scroples, too, which were deserving (considering, the parties from whom they come) the most serious they strock ont the Divorce Clause, then it would become in disprnsitile.that some other dome, having the satire effect, shoold he substituted iii its place, so as to make the Bill in telligible Loth to Lawyers and .l ridges The House must, therefore, in the end, es plain what it meant to do after re pealing, this Divorce tlanse—(hear !) —1 hey might, he tht.ught, devise some explanatory- measiire, wonld g vs: the religious part t,f the contract nntonchett hot still would leave the parties in that complete state of se pat,' ion which their relative condition after this Bill tit ces sat ly dictated; in fact, to make that separation, which was now in effect existing, to all inteins and purposes conelosive ly(hear!)—Atiother circtimstat:ce, which in this or . raligenient it was vet y material to consider,. was this. sup pose the case of a holy who commenced a suit in the Ecclesi astical Court against a tun:band, from who - m she lived in a state of separation, for the restitution of her conjugal rights, and that Ow bostiand pleaded of the adtillery, and proved it, in her would not the Court reject her application? Might it not he prop. r, SO as to reconcile all the distressini! differences in this ('louse, by looking at it, as a case in which the patties had lived separate for several years, and in which adoltery oo the-part if the wife had brill proved, and as if the hoshand hid pleaded that adultery in bar to the restitution I ' .r conjugal nglits ? They would thus leave the religious contract of mat:loge, but the parties WWII(' be in the same sitnation as if there had been a divorce a nansa et Moro. Whateret charge of inconsistency be might be exposed to (and he chewed it to be the dirty of a public man to - submit himself to all observations on his confine.), ' though in his judgment the Divorce Clause was not objec tionable, lie did nut think it possible, on account of the pledge given by the Noble Earl t'Liverponl); for him in dividually, to give his vote for the Divorce Clause,, but he hoped no other person would be influenced by his vote in condemning it. The Mat que4 of LAINSDOWN said, he felt it impossible, though lie disapproved of the whole Bill, not to offer some observations cm the question before the Conintittee, though be begged their Lordships not to slippOse that he rose to otter any ohservations on sthe divine law, the considerations of which he was not indifferent to, but which had been discuss ed by other persons so much better qualified to do justice to it than himself. But he felt it his duty, before the rejection or the passing of this clause; So protest against the doctrine stbich he had heard asserted it) the course of the discuvs. that thtre might exist a woman the w►fe of the King and lint the Queen Cmisoit of these realms. lie felt as the flight ileverend Prelate who had spoken that morning, the (Nee. tuns to the. admission of the clause before them, but he frit still more the difficulty of admitting a character directly irre concilable to the constitutiona person, being the wife of the King, but fulfilling no one purpose, answering no one • end which the country expected, and had a right to expect front the wife of the Sovereign. , Their Lordships, after ad mitting the clause, reading it a st•cmid time with the Bill, And then rejecting it in the Committee, would proclaim to the world that the Queen had been an adulteress; but that, entertaining that opinion, they thought it fit that she should continue alewife of the King.=--(Hear, hear!)—Disguise it as they would,ihis was the effect of their declaration. Was it a tinatter of indifference to proclaim this When the whole course of histeiry and the wholes tenor of the laws asserted the principle, that the marriage of the Ki n g was contracted to answer, not individual purposes, hilt great online ohjects,and when Parliament had legislated with that view Admitting that the Queen might be degraded, and yet remain the wife of the King, they incapacitated her, and also the King -him self, from rendering those public_ services by means of mar riage, which Parliament always had considered that the mar riage was contracted to answer. He did not say that he ap proved of the clause in itself, because he did not approve of the Bill at all ; but he besought them to look whether it was not a necessary deduction from the other clauses. If they left it out, they would only add im•re anomaly to all the other anomalies of this wst,aordinary measure. They then would bare a person against whom it was a!lcged, that when in the situation of Princess of Wales, she had committed adultery; who continued ['ripe, ss of Wales, for years after that adul tery was alleged to be committed ; .who, beemning the Queen, and having committed I/0 adultery as Quern, was degraded . by their enactment, on account of that previousalleged adut tery ; who ceased to he Queen, but yet continuetf to be the wife of the King, and was recorded; though an adultress, as a person who might succeed to the Throne of these realms.— They would have a person who had filled oittk high situation, that of Princess of Wales .and who was then promoted to another situation still higher, in which she had committed no crime, and who was degraded from the honour of that situa tion, but still remaining the wife of the King, and capable of succeeding to anothyr, the highest of all situations, that of Queen regnant of the realm. Neither would this he just to the Queen. They would have stripped her of all the attri butes, but would leave her subject to all the disabilities aris ing out of her contract. Her Majesty would have a right to complain that she was to remain subject to the authority when she was deprived of the protection of a husband. This divorce of course was only justifiable on the ground of adul tery, which he did not think was proved, but he should not ha-Ye quitted his conscience if he had not declared his conviction that this clause was an inherent and necessary part of the' Bill, and that the Bill must he passed in tufo, or that ore other anomaly must be added to this ano malous measure. Lord KiNG said there was a strange confusion of opinion in the House—there was a confusion of .opinion avuung - the Ministers—a confusion of opinion among the Lawyers--and a confusion of opinion among the Prelates.—(A Inugh.),-; There were political scruples in the House, and religious scruples ; for he was bound to suppose that only religious scruples operated on the Right Itev. Bench. The House had not derived, therefore, much information from the opinions of th'e Fathers of the Church, among whom there was not that unanimity so much to be desired in the Church of England.— The Noble and Learned Lord who had waited for their opi nions, had not ;pissed much by his delay ; hut if he hail not information, he had at least consolation, for he would find that there wore doubts among Churchmen as well as among Lawyers.—lA was anxioUs to see the enact ments of the Bill less absurd than the preamble was unjust, for he considered there was an utter want of evidence, and that the Noble Lords had been influenced by reports.. He would confess that he for one had not been able, though he endeavoured to direst his mind of them. He had heard, for instance, in stipport—of th - e assertion, that the. Queen bad been guilty of indecent fainilistities with Bart ',Monica) Bet gami"; that she had been guilty of familiarities of the same nature with the Right Honourable the Earl of Liverpool, at Blackheath-4A lativ,lo-- - -videlicit, playing at hlindman's bilit—(Great laughter)—and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The time when this happened he had not heard; perhaps it was when lie was out of Office and trying to get in again—(" No, I assure the Noble Lord," from Lord Liver pool.)—Perhaps, then it was just before the Regency—(.Ne ver, I assure the Noble Lord," from Lord Lircrpool.)— (Mirch laughing, and cries of hear I) Earl GRRY said, that if he had entertained any doubts on this question, when he referred to the opinions which had . been delivered by the Right Rev. Bishops, those doubts would hare been in no degree relieved. Of the eight of those Rev. Prelates by whom the House had been addressed, four had given a decided opinion one way, and the other four had giv e r ; a decided opinion the other way. HOW the Noble and. Learn ell Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) had satisfied tiro doubts which he yesterday stated to have existed in his mind, he was at a loss to conceise. As for any information he had received from that venerable Bench, he might have spared them the unnecessary trouble of meeting that day. He, how ever, now rose merely for the purpose of stating his own dif ficulties. If he had voted for this Bill, he certainly should have no doubt or hesitation whatever in voting fur the Di vorce Clause; for he must repeat that it did not seem to him possible, with any thing like a consistent regard for the ho nour of the Crown,and lie had not yet heard any thing which induced him to think that it might not he compatible with the strictest observance of religious duties; that the Queen, who had been degraded by Act of Parliament for such of fentes as had been imputed to her, should still remain the wife of the Kitsg—(Hear, hear 1)"But he felt a difficulty in voting for this Clause when he thought that the proof which Was necessary to support_ any part of the Bill had failed.— But'he reconciled himself to the voting for it, in the hope that he might, by the passing of this Clause, put-the House in a situation in which they woul4l he trove to do great public service—to reject the Bill on the third reading. —(Hear !) The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said, he remained of the opinion which he had first expressed in favour of the clause, and he would remind the House of the situatlnn in which they were to he placed. They had been for 50 days consider ing a Bill which had been brought in by the Ministers, as they were hound to suppose, after due consideration. This Bill contained only one enacting .paragraph, which Was di vided into two propositions or clauses. The Ministers now Ailed on them to abandon one of t hose clauses. But this seas not all. Would they then pasi the remaining clause asikt. Mood ? No. They had told the House that the Biljfimlll - in that - rase he carried, but that it must be new modelled. that after 50 days' consideration they coold not pass the exkting, or any low of it, hot some other Bill, of the exact saturi• of which they bad not yet receirLd the least hint.— Flury Were to onsit one half of the Bill, and they were told that the remainder was not to stand: They should hare Sousse notion at least of what sort of Bill they were to have instead of that which was before Lord ELLENBOROUtiti - said, lit did not think any re' gibes scruples could rxist AS to the etattse, After the opinion, dehVt:feti i)y the Right Rererrild Prelates ' or that any legal .061uction could tewain, atter the oilinion of the Noble Lord who ns;tnlls sat on the Woolkaeli. that wonhl lie the effect of t his BM withunt the Clause of tlieorcc f it veonlit he a deelarettion that the Queen is too bad for the Stat.., but not to o brtd fur the King. If they . passed such Bill, they would pohlish. by the authority of the house of Lords, a seditious lihyl on the King.—(Hear, hear !) Lord SOMERS said, that if - any thinx, could induce hint to rote ag,,iUstth e Divorce Clause it would be the avowal of the object of a Noble Earl (Earl Grey) in coming to a vote in its favour, viz, the making it the means of throwing out the Bill. He lamented that the only nicefy of feeling respecting the 13 i 11 was to he 'found on that (the (Tpposition) side of the Honsu—(llear,,hear !)—Though•be should be sorry by voting for the Klause to •uado what the House had b ee n so l ong doing, fie could not reconcile it to himself to say, that the ; Queen, being deprived of all her rights and dignity, should remain fastened, as it were like a mill otine, room! the neck of her husband. The Earl of 'LIMERICK said, he had voted, on a dear con viction of the guilt of the Queen, tot the sucinol reading of the Bill; but it this Clause was omitted, the Bill would4r6i* grade, not only the Queen, hut the King, and, 'what:Was‘siill more. the nation, by leaving as the wife of the possessor - of the Throne a woman whom they had declated to be guilty of adultery. The Earl of ESSEX spoi:e to the fo:lowing efrect—Agree ing with the Noble Earl (Grey) in all that he had said, .1 thiok I can reconcile to myself the inconsistency of voting for the' Divorce Clause, even aftet the perfect conviction that not one atom of the Preamble of the Bill has been proved. I have regretted munch that - her Nlajesty's conduct snbsulpient to 1817_ has not been investigated.o Om this OtCaSioll, for it was due to her Majesty to do so. But the omission proceeded only, I suppose, from the satisfaction of her persecutors, that they haul sufficient of that sort of evidence upon which they meant to coodeato her. I never had a doubt, that at no dis lig period this foul Conspiracy would conic to light, and that the plots of the Ministers, the Gu i'mnis,• and the Omp tedas would he developed. With respect to that period of the Queen's absence front this count ry,which has not been referred to in the investigation before your Lordships, I feel it my duty to state, in-justice to this Illustrious Princess, thatin the year 1819 1 had the hotuo,r of waiting upon her at Lyons, where there existed no mvstery whatever : and I witnessed the conduct of Bcrgami towards her Royal Highness to be of the most re spectful description possible. Under these circumstances I cannot hut wish that this Bill may be setutovith all its imper fections on its head, to meet the motion for the third reading. Th e Noble Earl coneluded, as we understood him, with oh -serving, t4uat he thought this - measure emanated rather from the Ministry of Hanover than of England. Lord ANSON said, that he shookd vote for the Divorce Clause upon the same ground as that stated by his Noble Friend on the door Tad Gre . s), namely, in the hope tat its adoption would lead to the rejec t ion T of the Bill alt titer. l i For this ejection he was naturally anxious, as a easure more repugnant to the principles of justice, or more revolt ing to the . judgment and feelings of the people, was never, he believed, even in the worst times of our history, obtruded up on the consideration of Parliament. But it was his con scientious conviction that the whole of this proceeding had originated in a base conspiracy to ruin the Queen, of whose innueence tie was thoroughly convinced.—Such, indeed, was the universal impression of the public, who had therefore al ready derided against this measure. The Earl of TLIANET declared his tntire, unqnslified con viction of the innorence of the. Queen, in the hope of saving win.mn horn the find confederacy phich sought her destruc t ion s he should vote toc the Duvurce Clause. The Earl of CARNA,EVON animadverted upon the re• marks which had been made on the other side, with respect to what was called "the united phalanx of (apposition;" ob serving, that if that phalanx had nut hren divided, the advo cates for the Bill before the House would have experienced much more-embarrasiment in its progress. It was not im probable, indeed, that if it were not for the secession of the Noble Lord on the cross Bench (Lauderdale), who had given the aid of his powerful eloquence ro the oilier side, this Bill would not have arrived at its nresent stage. It was not, how ever, from any consideration fur the united phalanx, as it was termed, but from a solicitude for the United Kingdom, that he felt it his duty to deprecate the measure The Noble Lord at the head of the 1 reasury, who was so anxious for the disgrace of the . Queen, was still adverse to the Divorce, desiring only a separation. So that, according to this doctrine, whether the Queen continued to live in England or not, she, while degraded front her rank and title, was still to remain the wife of the King.-- Nay more, :while the wife of the King, if she engaged in the most adulterous and legrading intercourse, she could not be punished, unless Mi listers could contrive to carry another 13111 of Pains and Pe- Ries against her. Thus, although Ministers pronounce, d would persuade Parliament to pronounce, the teen one of the most degraded wretches of womankind; • degraded, indeed, that she must he deemed unworthy of ming the wife of any roan, those very Ministers Would have t understood that it was quite fitting the King should be bnrthened with her, Such was the liberal judgment of those Ministers who called themselves the King's friends; he'would not imitate - the example of such Dien, -hut for the sake of the Throne of England, he would oppose theMinisters' endeavour to omit the clause of divorce. 3111 Qii so Lord HOLLAND observed, that among what the Noble Lord on the' other side called " united phalanx," there had been a division in this ease, as well as among the Bishops, the Ministers, and the Lawyers. He believed that many of the Lawyers would agree with hint in dissenting from the opinion of the Learned Lord (Redesdale) as to the effect of the law, if a Clause of Separation were substituted for that of Divorce; for in case of separation, neither the Queen, nor any paramour whom she might select, would he snhjeet to the penalties of treason for the commission of adultery, although she would still remain the wife of the King. But if the House decided that the Queen should be disgraced, upon what ground could they decide that she ought not to he divorced? He had no hesitation in saying, that he would vote fur the Divorce, because the Bill of Degradation should not be al lowed to pass without it; but he would vote for the Divorce with the intention of coding against all parts of the Bill upon the proposition for the third reading. The Marquess of BUCKINGHAM said, he felt it neces sary to make a few observations upon this important ques tion, without at all adverting to the ultimate vote opon the Bill. The ooly question which then appeared to him to en gage the attention of their Lordships, was, whether are clause ' of divorce shotild be rejected or retained ? In considering this question, he had naturally looked with the most anxious attention for th e o pi n i ou o r tke Bench of Bishops, and from these 'doh ;Authorities he collected, that by the law of God there was no impediment to divorce in case of adnitery. From the Opinion of a Learned Lord who op posed the divorce, he learned, that in case of separation the Queen would retain all her religious rights as a wife, being only deprived of her civil privileges. Now, consi dering the character of this opinion, and as lie believed with the Reverend Bench, that there was, by divine law, no impediment t o di vorc e i n case o f a d u l ter y, h e f e l t hi mse lf called upon to vote for a divorce in this case, as he believed the Queen guilty of adultery. The Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury had stat e d, th a t if i n ease o f separation, the wife should commit adultery, divorce would not follow. But •this opinion, he maintained, was as contrary to practice as to principle; it was contrary to principle, because it held out to any woman separated from her , husband, that no Di vorce could follow from her conduct, bon ever infamous— that indeed she might commit or engage in adulterotts in tercourse with impunity. Then as to practice, a case had not long since occurred, in which, although the - parties had been separated by articles, it Divorce was granted in con sequence of the adultery of the wife. Upon these gronnds he could not concur with the Noble Lord at pile head of the Treasury, that if adultery should be committed after separa tion a Divorce would not follow; and still less could he con cur with that Noble Lord, that a woman deemed unfit to re tain the situation of Queen, in consequence of her adultery, should yet be deemed fit to retain the situation of wife to the King• But he liad another and a strong objection to the Noble Lord's proposition; for if a divorce should not take place, and t h e Queen should bring forth a son, that child would not for- feit the right of succession to the Throne. To futlow, hdu , ever, the course suggested by the Noble Lord, would be it etreei to give the Queen a license to commit adultery ;—it would, indeed, he directly to oppose the principle of that great authority which had been lately quoted at the Bar, in one of the most eloquent speeches ever delivered—for, instead of . . saying to the. Queen , •` Go thou and sin no more," it would be telling her, . go and sill as much as you please, for no pu nishment can follow."—(Hear, liqar l .)—But their Lordships were, he trusted, ietcapable of 4.enctiNing such an anuf Lily as h e omission of the clause &t il er cottsideration *oulene ces '.involceZ. n . . . NI ... Ilk , rl of C[! OW exprested his sUrprise thit, s the ~i lnaltoriPss of. t lutellbusedrWaTtesed a- . 6onaieVnit Mf Ph:Anvil I tern of the Clereti, in which conviction he 'fully participated any attempt should be made to expunge the clause of Divorce Fur hiinself he would say, that as lie could make no compro. raise with adultery, he would vote for the retention of that clause. Earl MANVER.said the Bill had his must entire and u qualified approbation, and he would never consent to the exclusion of the only important enactment, and one which necessarily followed the preamble of the Bill. A Noble Vis conti t had yesterday declared it as his most conscientious opinion, that the Queen was the victim of a foul and base conspiracy; be (Lord Nlanver:) trusted it would not he thought tort presumptuous in him, if (after having given the evidence and arguments on both sides the most anxious bear ing aio; attention) he drelm (d, firm an equally conscientious conviction, that instead of being t he'virtiin of a conspiracy, her conduct had been most degroliihr and scantlalous—(hear, hear I from a tew Peers in the Gallery, -on the right of the Woolsack) —most adulterous and infamous—(more cheers from the same quarter.) . . Lord PALNI(43TH fell some reluctance in obtruding him self on the House ; but his apology must he the sense of duty which he entertained.. A Noble Marquess under the Gallery (Buckingham) had stated, that it was a 10-ostrous anomaly to strip the Queen of her rifts and privileges and still suffer her to remain the wife of the King ; but was t here a Noble Loi d present prepared to 'say, t hat t hei e was a single _woman in It o country who had no civil, no private rights ? One of those rights, and it was the right of every married woman, was her hushand's protection! It t heir Lordships were of a difit Tent opinion, he should regret having suffered the Bill to reach its present stage, without having declared his sentiments against it. A , tirserend.Frrlate,lnut said , the King: conld do ho siroug : this was an axiom quite tree in a legal sense, but common 9eIISC' revolted at the idea of taking the assertion strictly according to the letter. He would yield to no one in Isis attachment to his Sovereign in his pubiicand political capacity; hot he d•ould neii her be doing his duty to his Sovereign, our 10 himself, if he did not also adroit that the King had private rights and ditties to perform, within his own family in particular, as well as the meanest of his subject:. Lord DARNLEY hoped'that the limited phalanx who were opposed to the Bill in 10b., - supported as ithad been by thine-, parties all over the House, would triumph at last. He never felt greater pride in his life Orin in breini ore of that phalanx. He was under the painful necesiity,bowever, of differing win!, his friends, so far as to think that the Divorce Clause ought not to stand part of the Bill. He would state his reasons in two words. The argument of the Right Reverend Frelate opposite (the Archbishop Tuam) had not been answered—no attempt had been made to answer it ; he did not think it was possible to answer it ! Feeling irresistibly the force, of it, he conk! not consent to give a vote for the divorce of the but heir;; unwilling to aid the object of the Ministers, he would give no vote on the 'other side. Lord BELHAVEN said, that he agreed with the Noble .Earl near hits' (Grey), in thinking that if the Bill was to pass at all the Divorce Clause must stand part of it. His Lordship begged Co add a fsw words as to what had fallen front a Noble Lord in the Gallery ;Lord Man vers),respect ing n he assertion of his Noble Friend (Lord Duncan); that her Majesty was the vic tim of a hare and fOril conspiracy. Ile hoped the day would yet conic, when it would be - laid open' to the world whether such a conspiracy did exist or not ; but he would assnre' that Noble Lord that, to induce him to convict any one of this Agents of the prosecution of being a party to conspiracy. he world re quire evidence ten times steouger than that on which his Lordship (LOrd Manvers) had ventured to pronounce so strong an opinions of her Majesty's conduct as he had done. The calls of " Question !" now became general, and it was put by the CHAIRMAN—.. Shall the Divorce Clause stand part of the Bill ?" His Lordship declared that the Non contents had it. A division was demanded, and strankers were ordered to withdraw. The numbers were (which we repeated) soon afterwards announced to be as follows Contents • Non-contents Majority for the Divorce Clause ....-67 .. 129 strangers were excluded, we heard that Lord KING rose, and said that he should offer no apology for submitting to their Lorthihips 'a clause, the insertion of which in the 13111 seemed a nuttier of course, considering that the Queca was not remotely placed in the illustrious line of Princes its the succession to the crown of these Itealms. The Crsr,vn was limited to her Majesty, in the event of certain persons prede ceasing her, and that. by the Most sacred and fundamental laws oft he land. if it devolved on her, the well-known loyalty oft heir Lordships must at once make them adopt a different view of the present question ; and, looking forwat d to that event, they must he equally ready to provide for it. He therefore moved this clause—“ And be it further enacted, - by the authority aforesaid, that in case the crown of these realms shall at any time descend to her said Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth,. then and in such case, .this present .act, and all the matters and things contained therein, shall become utterly void and of no effect, and the whole of the Preamble thereof shall be deemed and taken to be false, calumnious, and scandalous, upon the same evidence on which it hat h now been held to be sufficiently proved."—(Loud cheering, with cries of order.) Lord CiLVILLE (of Culross, in Scotland, one of the Scotch Peers) rose, with much warmth, to vindicate himself, and those who acted with him in favour of the Bill. He said they w e re aspersed—they were attacked—hy this oughts). He denied the justice of the imputation, and he felt it due to his own conscience, and that' of those who voted with him in this measure, to say that they acted conscientiously in it ; and that they still slid support the Bill. Notwithstanding, be ventured to assert that he and those who honoured him with their support were as loyal as the Noble Lord, or any non. He wished, therefore, to know whether that Noble Lord was in order—(Hear, hear !)—He was proceeding, but was him self interrupted by. Lord HOLLAND, who spoke to order. Toe Noble Lord. (Colville, of Culruss), had asked whether his Noble Friend was in order, but had not shown him to be disorderly, or pointed out how, which every Noble Lord was h , tund to do who took upon him to interrupt atiother.---,(Lond clots rs.)—The motion, he. verily believed, might nut be agreeable to the Noble Lord : but it did not, on that account, become disor derly.—(Hear, hear, hear!) Lord LAUDERDALE, with great vehemence, supp rted the objections to Lord King's clause. lie yielded to no mats in loyalty, but he thought this motion attacked every Peer who had supported the Bill; and it was the manner of maising it rather than the motion it - ielf f , which all must perceive to be disorderly.—(Cheers.) Lord KING could not allow that any thing disorderly was contained in his Clause. It ascribed no motives to any one except loyalty, of which every one was, and justly might be. proud. It only affirmed what was the necessary consequence of hiyal feelings, and assumed that their Lordships, as loyal men, the moment the Queen. Consort became ' by succession, Queen-Regnant, would change their belief respecting her conduct. This was a necessary consequence of their regal d fur the first principles of the Coustiapt ion, by which ev, ry Monarch was deemed '' most excellent," without any regard to his conduct or chat actor. The Clause was negatived without a division, and the Chairman was dirrtted to report the Bill, The House resumed, and ordered the report to be received to-morrow.—Adjourned. Mr. HumE, in his ridiculous speech upon the treasonable placards, states, that the address which appeared on the Ist of. April, in this city, and in all the towns and vin t ages in the West of Scotland, originated with the Government. In _ _ reference to the Address, The Glasgow Herald of yesterday contradicts the statement of Mr Hume, and says, " We have made inquiries at the proper sources of information, and find that the seditious placards of the Ist of April. were not only printed, but originally drawn up in Glasgow. Two lads, Robert Fulton and John Hutchinson, who printed the Address, tied to America, and three hundred pounds were, at the time, offered for their apprehension. Three well .known persons in Parkhead composed the Address and employed the above two laids to print it in Mr. M'Kenzie's office, but without the knowledge of the Proprietor ; and the expence was paid out of• the penny a-week radical subscription."—(Glas gow onnzer•.) • a * * Fur " An Old Correspondent:'..ite the First pa 4 . for " Ignotiis," and " I. G. ti." see the Fonab ray LORD NlAToses DAY.--Holiday t the tnk, East lowa' South Se-a. Houses. ‘ —*---. t. Itgo P HIGH WATER AT LONDONBRIDATOM O " , iii llornink3s minutes after 4. 1 Ertl/int:, se .AllllllllO .... .;.., .... A - "4" --- 'V ~,,..• ". T - c_ Lji • -. '%. • Villar4A- - t 4 . ' : Ili -7,‘, SOLEM QUIS DICERt P4L5' UM AUDEA. • LONDON, THURSDAY, N.OVEMBER. 9, 18 THE QUEEN. lIOUSE OF LORDS (THIS DAY), Nov. The LORD CHANCELLOR came to the 1 1 ° Ise few minutes before ten, when prayers Were re a by the Lord Bishop of L The ° au f ' ; was then, called over. Excuses were the Marquis of Hertford, the Earls of It° s1)1 Morley, Pembroke, and Huntingdon. , The Loup CHANCELLOR intimated thay ,- received a letter from Lord Holland, which st sc , ed that he was unable to attend in his plac e r ° t ng to an attack of the gout, mid requestio3 le Might lie-permitted to sign the Prote s6 .:i ii , mad lately been entered an their Journals' first day he should be able to come ( 1° ,o the House. very THE SIGNING OF THE DissENT. The Earl of MINT° now moved that the SP ing Order (141) should bb forthwith read• The LORD CHANCELLDR then stated, tit 3t was instructed by Lord Holland to move the st;' pension of the Standing Order in favbur of t ' v td . Noble Baron, whose illness prevented Id° a , tending in his place at the time the Proteit entered on the Journals and who Was 'still it ! ' if disposed. He, unfortunately, could assure t' le Lordships that he was too well acquainted the nature ,of the indisposition . with Holland was afflicted, for one moment to 01. ' 1 '5'1 his assent to that Noble Lord's request. j '; ' therefore, moved that the request be , grao te i r and that he (Lord Chancellor) should be at lerty-to inform Lord Holland by letter what to louse agreed to.—Agreed. The Earl of MINTO then ' moved the 5111 Tivilege in favour of himself, Lord 'ErsO' f ; ,ord Ellenborough, Viscount Bolingbroke, ' ll' be (we believe) the Earl of Darnley, w wished to subscribe their names to the Prott‘s'. This motion was agreed to. , c , het i Lord Em.rssononou said, lie only to sign the second Claace of the Protest.- 1 ' l a e was agreed to, though the Earl of Lauder d objected to the signing of particular parts wit - h ° is tit ,some explanation was entered on the Jourila the time. PROCEEDINGS ON THE BILL. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought UP the Report of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, Or ' ther with the amendments made in the G cll mitten, which were read by the Lord (I'3° cellor. The Duke of HAMILTON said, he had to i l l 0 logize to their Lordships for not having 19 earlier stage, during the amendments to the 13 `, taken occasion to address the Douse. Ile ( eh that that part of the Preamble of the 13i11, Ny' ji 1)° stated that the adultery was proved, shoul d e left out. He hoped his Noble Priend on th e, / cross-bench would object to passing this par t the Preamble of the Bill. The Earl of LIVERPOOL believed that the me e j, gular course would be, to read all 'the arne° ments first,, and afterwards to object to th em singly or collectively. After a few words from the Lotto Cn.tsciLLal4 and Lord LAUDERDALE, The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to 11' 0 the amendments as far as the sixth, w ) were all agreed to. It appeared that atn°" these the principal one consisted in the inserti°l' 0 of the letter " B " instead of the letter ` t - 1- • Bartolomeo . was changed to Bartolomo. it Lord ELLE• nort. - :LGII then observed, th at it was expected that the Bill would have been O ic ,, modified in the Committee, but it was now O il fest that the only alteration it had underP ° was the substitution -of one letter for ,anot her with a. few verbal alterations of nearly the s ° l importance, or rather of no importance at Ail. 5 Ile therefore hoped that such Noble Lnro s had voted for the second reading of the Bill , ° ,l the ground of the Divorc clause being exinog e would now consider it their duty to vote ag ai° the Bill. ha ° The Earl. of LAIMERD.I LE said, after wha t ti just fallen from the Noble Baron ) that he 11 1513e # to say a few words on that Clause, He trus ter that Noble Lords had yesterday heard and tre - a ; sured - np the real grounds on which the Dil9re tr u! and AN ticl sec, il p ( 4ne, sOl ter; 1111 r Lac' Lir( R 11 llgj i of cle; \Vaf 43, trio Pe i( tric' tu R had. Se ( ,, he , .oft arid by th. ei he ' fool Ina, hay. b ( t. t E c a ti c); von c ot h►n thi 40 ( r~ n k f k~ii