The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-13 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

Lordships, but assistant hinasslf at prmient with protesting against
chi:, mite had done against every stage of the proceeding. lie
(Lord Darnley) had understood, both iroan the Noble 1. -rd on
the %Voolsack and the Noble Maui oppodteAliverpool), that their
Lordships should unclad proceedings de die ha rli,•in, unless
ptevented by sicknes,; and that if ally Peer was al Went dariog
an important pa t of the trial. he should not be entitle I to vote;
and yet a Noble Lord had voted against the queen who had not
heard her defence. The Noble Earl eaucladed by &cluing,
that he ;mall taa.... thi, opportunity, and every opportunity, of
giving every opdaiition to the Bill.
Arta a few words front Lord Sheffield, the House resolved
itstlf into a Committee.

..... • .........
The Earl it SHAFTESBUII Y. (the Chairman) putting the
question whether the discussion on the preamble should be post-
lamed ? the
Earl of LIVERPOOL would now read the preamble, and
state such alterations as he dceintxl nisiessary; the first was, the
name of the individual who was so conspicuous in these proceed-
ings which he wished to be altered to " Bartolomeo Bergaini,"
nstond of liartholoilio Perganii. Ile would also move that the
word, of the preamble, charging the queen with having " ob•
tamed for hint orders of Kinghthoeil, and titles of honour,"
should ba struck out—not that he had any doubt of the fact, but
it had been proved in evidence. Ile would now coma to a not
material on of the preamble, which stated, that " while her
Royal had the said Bartolomeo Bergatni in her service,
she, unmindful of her exalted birth and station, and rowardless
of her own honour, conducted herself towaids Bergatai, in the
various places and countries where her (loyal Highness visited.
with indecent and ofE.nsive familiarity and freedom." He would
move that the word " the" should be struck out, and that it
should stand, "in various places and countries." Thesewere the
only alaerations to deemed neceisary, and he would afterwards
have oecaiinn to state, that the preamble had been fully proved,
Lord ERSKINE said, their Lordships were, is his opiniou,
going to strike out the only part of the preamble that was true.
lie (Lord ErslcMc) did not Lelie-e that the dee:oiling intercouse
with which the Queen was charged had licen proved.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGi I moved 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 aoluite.oul intercourse, arid still that she was not
divorced. lie had no idea that the Bill would pass into a law.
Lord II AR ROWDY supported the words.
Lord ERSKINE observed, that time Noble Earl had oe,sitted
some things which were trite, and certainly he might comicat to
the ontission of those which were ftise. Ile considered the Pro-
test of her Majesty confirmatory cv.dence of her innocence; but
if' their Lordships were de:ermined to think her otherwise, how
could they deny she had been guilty of an adulterous intercourse
and refuse to divorce her ft—(llear, hear).
'rite preamble was then carried, cal the House ;Roo-ceded to
discuss the Claus's.

Tut: Dr VORCE CLAUSE.—This clause having been read,
The Archbishop of YORK rose. He knew, lie said, of no
expediency that could justify any thing of this sort.—
Marriage was not it civil contract, but a sacred ordinance of reli-
gion, and he looked to the word of God as his guide in forming
an opinion upon this case. He C3Ol not therefore vote for the.
divorce. And ykt, if the House were to pass the Bill without the
divorce, the monstrous spectacle would be exhibited of 4 King
having fit his wife a degraded woman !—There wai no possibi.
bility of avoiding this txtmtity, withodt throwing oat the Bill
altogether.—(Loud crie° Of hear, haat.. hear.)—lt had been said
that regard for public moral:, ant'. the intcre,ts of religioa, re-
quired the Bill should pass. Much mare would the public morals,
and the interests of religion have been served, if the had never
theca spoken of—(llear, hear, hear.)—Those nauseous publican
(ions would not It ive got into private society. It would bc gra-
tifying to all goo t men to hear tnat the measure was wally
abandoned ; but it would be gratifying to the enemies of order
to hear that it as: persevered in. lie concluded by praying to
xl that he mi; it not have to deprecate the continuance of ths
Bill far the rest o 'his life.

The Bish ui of CHESTER said, he believed the Queen to be
guilty; but ha had voted for the second reading of the Bill, upon
the understanding that the Divorce Clause. was to be laid aside,
5p Hcshuuld vote ?'a u' that Clause, as he judged as he would
wish to I.,ejud .
The Arehbi of C.\ NTEIt BURY considered the charge of
adultery establishisi against her Majesty, and, under that con-
vietion, he had no o ijectiun of uny disruption, least of all of a
religious nature, to the Bill prozeeding in the form in which i
now stood.

The Bishop of IVORCKS'rER admitted that the question of
the divorce was not without some dilficulty; but, considering
how much the motels of the country were concerned in the !Nue
of this proceeding, he frit bound to give his support to the/fill.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF thouglit the Divorce clause
should be retained. He did not sot: any force in the objection
made to it on a religious ground ; fur he k ICIV of nothing in
the C tristia t religion against a dissolution of marriage for
adultery.
The Bishop of LONDON a4;reed with his Right Reverend
Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury,) thot Divoices wers
authorised by the words of our Saviour. As to any objection to
the divorce clause of the Bib, founded on the supposed conduct of
the complaining party, he thought it quite inapplicable. /Sigmas
consjotutional I rincipie was involved in the present case. The
King •6 could do no wrung;" he could not mount a folly, far
less a crone; and thereline, recrimination was out in' Inc
tion.-01,or, heat,)
Laid I .AI; DK It Ll.Dg. with due submission to the opinions
which hail filled [fort the Reverend Bench of Bishops. thought
Mitt il.e 1!••use ought nut to agree to the divorce clause. Ile
agree,: with wnat hal been so ably urged tut the subject by the
subject by the Learned Doctor who had spoken for t;ie defence.
(Dr. Lusnington,) that the law of marriage was the sante with
regard to the highest us to the lowest subject of the realm. if
tier Majesty sliouhl vii. she to sue for divorce, the applieotion
ought to he tress on the:woe prir eilde as the suit of any ordinary
individual would be tried. ' Inc Rev. Prelate wl.o spoke lost,
seemed to think, that if adultery was proved the divorce clause
might be pites,al, because nu facts hail been proved against vie
husband. The divorce clatiseo7pemed to hint to be inconsistent.
Tile grounds on which he had vino' the measures weie, that
the que,.a was foetid guilty vicrinies which rendered her unfit
to he set toe head of the tintales of this country. But Coe cornlttei
of the King mishit he such as not to entitle him to a divorce.
Lord 1)All N I.K f mottling that had fallen fitful the Rev
Bench of itishoT, had any intktenee on hi.- mind. A Reverent:
Prelate had . were WUJ nothing in the whole Scripture to
prevent divorce; but Scripture says, 6* He that puttetli away
iii., wife, 6-IVC for wrote: atom causeth he: to commit adultery.
He appealed to the 11,ase, if the ‘l.tesii was put away by her
husband, and not fur Me crime of iorniveion, dial he !not cause
her to commit / And if sh, and he came for a divorce,
bow, then, could their Lortkilips grant it ? lle lilt that their
lairdships could pro., won or without the di-
vorce clv

Lord DONOUGIIMOIII,, war surprised th,it the Noble Lord
(Laudath.le) had ri,cn to °pet.; ti;.: divun;,, clause. 11e could
not tail to olyervo, that dirt_rence of cpinion existed onto* the
Her. lieneli of Ilishops; but the greater number of them were
urriniotou,. Tito Noose hal ambit ,11 that Ow Qui:, a A 45 not tit
to he the Quecii tor,iert, and their Lordship:, owed it to the coun-
try, and to tae women of the truntry, should nut coo.
mow the wife of tire Kim:.
The Rl.lrnp of Cllt. fI;H sxid, no ronrie.eration wh.itever
would ir.du.•e ,;:n. to la., the Bill y. ni. the tlivt•rc:
Lord It urz wi tit A3l was in cbery rebpeet ik,tainst tile nett
.tan. lit cApresacti hr. stop tz.e .hat Lie [louse m0.,,i1,1 entertain
toe idea of a divorce, when it owd not b:en apphod for by either
raty.--••oHcar. hear.)

s.,

sd 3

Lord LIVRAPOOL said. that as he had observed before, he
wai. ready to give up the chtuis relating to the divorce. it the
House thought it advisable to abandon that part of the tneasuie.
The LOBE) CHANCEI.I.OIt said, that if some clause were
not introduced which woutd mou etfxtually separate the parties.
the Queen would he by the Bill, without the divorce, bound
more ehavly to his ,I:•..j,lsty.
Lord DUNCAN said, cite proceedings in that House
were grounded on a con:piracy...J. Hear, hear! Order 1 Order I)
He could lay !do hand on his heart, and fearlessly say, be
Goa, that he believed her Alejesti not guilty.
The Earl of t 4 HANTRSBIIIBY, the Chairman, then reported
prognas, and asked leave to sit again to-morrow.—Adiourued.
ithdt %lAJI.SrV.
WILIJNESDA Y. NOV. 8.
The House resumed proceedioge 016 m )ining at ten
o'clock.

Lori Beretford (recent?) t 'turned from Portugal) took
the oaths.

Among the absentees from diners were Lords Roes, the
Earl of pariiiigton, aial the Marquis of Hertford.
After application had beau made by several Peers for per-
mission to sign the protest 4K4Olist the Bill, which ought to
!lava been dune yesterday, the House resolved With into a
Committee. AThe tchhishop of TU4III, the Bishops of
Peterhorouzli hod Chester, each opposed the throrco clause.
Lord RI:0E7;1)Al t... ciroodered the marriage contract
rattier as a religious vow than at it civil contract, and there-
fore that it could not Ire diss.ils ed. Bit was a coutract, it
might be dissolved by mutual ronsent of the parties.
After a few retnnrks from leo •Is lusou, Carnarvon, W..
Icy, Ellennorou ,h, &c. the Bosse resolved itself tour a Coin-
ouittec on the Hilt.

Alrhbish p of 'f IJAM.—" My birdie it is whit the M.
most pain that 1 oiler myself to the notice of your Lordships.
which I slio.dd out have done, had it not been for the very
direct manner in 'which the body, of which I forma part.
were called ii; by the Noble and Leartieil Lard u iso spo'ivis
last yesterday. My leorcia, I will refer you the /Ind vet.•
of the btu chapter of tae Gospel 10 SI. %I Ai they
My mind has long been made tip a, vote rigiiiiist the divarce
clause from that very verse, but if I can slime, lint the
illustrious lady whose conduct has been so lung under
sideration had heel' put away by her htishand, if I al.) their
(ruin the holy script:lre' u sideman detifiticial ion from the law
:labial such putting :sway, then shall I show sufficient
ground to induce me to vote againq the divorce clatest
which would release the Kin; (ruin his marriage contract.
and leave him at liberty to marry again. Tnat arch a put-
ting away of the wife did take place is abundantly evident
front the lett. r of the husband, w winch alone I wilted beg
leave to refer. The denunciation to which I have allude•!
to is 1:1 the Fe( wad chapter of the Proalsel MaliliChl.lllllleil fur
literally puttifig away 4i wife, she face of the Lord was
turned away from the people. ati:l he regarded of their
otli•rimgs. The temple restitioded with. llh• lartlelltalleflS of
the women ; ail the Prophet established his cheree against
them us crying sou, by reminding them of the first isenttliti
of marriage. Tne of Israel bath said, " lie hateth a‘l
pawn:: away ;" My Lord:, I stand here a most unwilling
judge in this cause, and l will es:Welly confess to your L•ard-
ships, that muffing, but (twee and tbe heavy penalties whirl&
your Lordships have atlas bed to absence, would have tune.
inc Iu attend this distressing investigation. 1 have
voted fur the second readiug of thus Bill, becau•e MO 011ie:
measure was before the !louse, in which I could declare
Ih it a clear, satisfactory, HMI irresistible case had btett
made nut o► the guilt of the Queen. But as to this divorce
clause, my Lords, I can nese' reconcile myself to give it my
sanction mutt if it roes out of this Cumtnittee as part of the
Bill, I cannot give it my further support; fur I would rather
have the conduct of the Queen to miss utinuticed, than that it
divorce should be added to her degradation.
The Bishop of PE fERBOIttII/GII and never in his life
entered into the examination of any question wile inure
anxiety than he had as to whether the divorce clause should
stand part of the bill. lie was ail i that it ►houlit Au
omitted, although he hail no doubt of the legality of the
clause. The ul.retiuus acre principally tit it religions
nature; but marriage will a civil its well as a religious cui
tract ; and lie thought these civil right; mieht be soviienileil.
Ile was out sufficiently acquainted ii ith loin. of law to sus,.
gest such a clause in a specific form, hut as the Noble Lord
at the head of the Treasury had alluded to s•nnethiag of the
Lime sort yesterday, lie would leave it in his hands.
'file Archbishop of V (IRK said, is.. an advocate for the
sanctity of the man sage contract, and the reciprocal obli-
gations which result, d from that union, he could not recum-
t•ile to his cunscience, wider all the circumstances of the
present case, to vote lot the divorce clause.
Lord IiDLSOA LE was II( Opill.llll OM the t:ivtitee
should lie ietaun•d, us its operatiou a unaided to the legit
mutton of childreo. If the clause was given up, he would
be glad to know what was to be substituted, which ii uutil
not have the elG•et of• a divorce, however it might he lianwil?
fhr 1.01t1) CIIASCLILLOR said, iii coejant
his Noble Ft lend ( Lord Liverpoel), he add pleiseed,
himself slut to loess the clause, if there h. e'll.ed w br a
lop, ession against it la Wt' 11. m... If Nett Loldbilip•sligiolti
litiok inover 11/ 1.0411 t ihr divorce clause, 4.101114er t'llat 11110.il
l',ll LI!" limit 14: I 11::441.11, l'1• a stmt.:it teadency,
ise the parties would Le bound -e closely taw:titer (ism
ever.

he Mar'quisufL.ANSUU%VNE putt-iota the re-
ri•Ailitior. of ;toy pt which lictinated a SS 1.111411 In
e.ita as the A Ile sie the hoi.g vt.thout Leto& the consort ni the
se.6o.—(lleac, heat, heat, hyar !)--114: felt the obj,rl
matte li) wax of liar Eettrited Ptelalet, hut 1W coma., ~sot
shut ;us tb to the great Slate objections to toeir inv. of
tilt' question. stilt r haven,; &wow till, that such a tood.• eel
priecretling Wll3 due lu the king and the t,:ouoirv,he I,e.g,:f
their Lordships ho cuusidrr 21 ..le 6111.1 11 1011 yeciiii in tile
eveci 4/1.1011111 me elalleWt Her Nlelitt•ly "obi he strip-
ped at .all th.• antage, derivable front In r I.ll.trttlit'r ae
silitiect to all the disalolittcs to whit b the Hal
rehired, And tit the battle too- he expowel to the authority of
a husband, a hile slur tvi., di). iv( d 01 an kar.
lelt it Itiiitltity to declare, tit" 1011.14). 11 (1 1 01.
dim .e ii.lierent to lite 11.11, told of toTe,a.ary 1. e
thall late 111011allte must pass as it ,t Ila .n.o, 01 he 11tl•t-41
to the 'ilia oductitot of 'swatter of 'how at...alms A 1111 ti loch
it air. ad, . ~,,,, (dine,
Laud (: mid, he felt istsiescl,. 171 a shoat i•in of r nth r
..tut toy kind uptia toe tp,,aalott, mot the ilou•i , 111
111 S Slew, fully pal Iscspattal us it., 1,1,11 1.. t.,41 64.1144' 1i
10101•11,4 10 lite 40e•ltutt as It gt ~shored 11it.144.4" and
lit!` he taahl hat 11..74i, as:. laul 10,.uu.,s asdavn red
to) wpm Is which 114,1 elle& le. u 4 hum Mare. Wt.: 11.. antsy
tit Ili,- taveti. He cutarsse.l 111,1 hr 1144 idle ti Cak Dew. IA
41r111.1 .115011 IttllNe reptorls. Waked it *AS
list hue to h,sve door 011.,-rs. U. ; 11,1,41 Inn period et ..• le
11c 121121 %added, it was %110.. it s'a Ity
of ign• greeigeHt ioditcrocies, 11111 usK.',but sib
otlitripeisous ; that •r .14410... , at !Sta. rA • A hdd At eu
;jig/ 00,00111.01.,;1 • 1*.;11