The National Register.
London, England, 1820-07-10 00:00:00

No. 1,258—V0L. XIII.]

THE QUEEN.
-....

Ix our last number we took a review of the mode
of proceeding adopted by the advisers of the Crown
respecting the Queen—we now proceed to the con-
sideration of the subject in the light, first, of a
public, or, secondly, of a private offence; and,
lastly, of the expediency or justice, in case of any
offence committed (under all circumstances of the
Queen's history) of seeking for any remedy out of
the common course of either statute or customary
law.

As a publ:c offence, the crime of adultery is
visited, in consequence of the great evils which
might arise from a disputed succession, in case of the
defilement of the royal bed upon a Sovereign's con-
sort, with a penalty to which tlik crime is not liable
in the instance of any other subject. The protection
of the common-weal is the state reason of this pro-
vision, and gives rise to one more, among other
anomalies, which, in Monarchy under any shape (so
long as it is dignified, as it now generally is, and
the Monarch is not considered the responsible, as
well as, after all, the-real servant of the state,) are
perhaps inherent; and will ever be until the sotial
compact be more correctly ascertained, and more
distinctly understood: Now, as it is a state reason
alone which constitutes the public crime or injury,
it is the bearing of the offence alone (supposing this
to be the charge against the Queen), upon this view
of the subject, which ought in reason to be the cri-

tenon of the necessity of prosecuting it, as a public
injury; but in the present instance, the object of
prosecution is past the age when it is, in the course
of nature, at all probable that any public injury,
arising to the succession of the Monarchy, could be
the result; nor is it pretended, we believe, that any
danger of this kind could arise, otherwise it would
have been absurd, we had almost said criminal, in the
House of Commons, as well as the Ministers, ever
to have thought of an adjustment without a deli-
berate inquiry, at least into a matter of such great
national importance. But it. is clear, from the circum-
stance of the House of Commons having proposed,
and Ministers have supported, a plan of adjustment
highly advantageous to the Queen, supposing hcr to
be justly liable to the inlputation cast upon her, that
this precludes the supposition of any necessity of pro-
secuting the supposed °Minces on the part of the
Queen, as vitally affecting the state; and unless a
very imperative necessity existed, wholly distinct
from the necessity arising from the personal will of
a Sovereign, we cannot see with what propriety
ministers of state can turn away the public attention
from the scenes of public distress which exist every
where, and add new fuel to the embers of discontent
and dislike against those who live well while other::
starve, by irritating the humus iniol with acts of
which may be construed iviihood, and, cer-
tainly, by the passions very easily, into persecution
ufa stranger, a woman, and an unprotected Queen.
But it may be said, Has not the Sovereign a
right the same with any private gentleman, if he
can prove miscombict in his wife, to get rid of pier
without reference to criminal ,iroceedings or statute
provmutions? Is a Sovereign to have his civil rights
extinguished merely us a Sovereign ? Certainly not.
But, if it :s to become the question of a private
inquiry, then, b,: ides topics of recrimination, ■pen
tin' possibility of which we shall not enter, although
unqucsticnably us a private injury with a view to