The National Register.
London, England, 1820-09-24 00:00:00

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER SC 18x0•

should positively have refused inquiry Into the
Queen's case, even though the Queen wished for
inquiry, than it can justify a statute of power to
overwhelm her. " Sales pima supremo k.t ' might
indeed apply, if the peace of the country coal
be justly pleaded as depending upon scot stirring
the business ; and if there is even good ground for
argument on the score of the public peace, Lord J.
Russell's state necessity involves only a *egotist ,
whereas a Bill of Pains and Penalties is a positive
injustice.
Of two evils it is i rule that we should chuse tin
least; and again upon this ground we ask, which is
the greater evil? to satisfy the pretended state
necessity, and sacrifice the Queen by a proceeding at
variance with any known law, and destroying at
least a government of law; or, letting the public
liberty be sacrificed beyond dispute to an alleged
necessity upon the score of public morality, by 1
which it is pleaded that a loose-living Queen would
hurt the morals of the country- (which is at lea*
an uncertain consequence), whereas the evil to pub-
lic liberty is certain ; or, to let the whole thing
alone? And, moreover, the appearance is likely to
_do awe), very much the eifeetof oupposedmiscondnet,
and bring the accused Queen more into public
&your than if she had • been, without dispute,
sd-
aitted to all the honour of her station. And if, for
argument's sake, it be admitted that some prosecu-
tion was necessary, there can he no question, that
the same powerwhich violates a government oftari
by an ea post facto law could also by the same•
power have adapted this prosecution, to the ordinary
forms and analogy of a judicial trial, and that a jury
of Peers, with a right on both sides (vie. the prose-
eutors and the prosecuted) a) challenge, could have
been appointed (as Mr. Wilberforce has intimated)
in a court similar to that of a Lord High Steward
in impeachment, only with a limited number of
Peers.
The Ministerial prints take upon themselves,
not to prove, but to assert that the House of Lords,
when in a mixed legislative and judicial, or, simply
in a judicial capacity, is an unexceptionable tri-
bunal, and unimpeachable as to possibility of impro-
per bias, which, front the plain and manifest
connection of the Lords with the Crown, we consider
to be a position clearly untenable.
A Bill is to be passed, if possible, by the legis-
lature, to which the King is to give his assent, either
by his own hand or by proxy (which is the same
thing) to the degradation, debasement, and injury
of her whom he has sweat at the altar of God to
love, honour, and ebtaidt, as his wife, and the
Queen is to rennin hit wife thus degraded, disho-
noured, and nitcherialted by the husband. State
necessity is to.supersede divine obligation !—Let the
sophistry of **Ministers escape from this perplexity
if it can : and hotly, if they plead for an excuse the
" maintenance of
,the public peace," we would
ask them, if th powers of controul vested in
the constitutibusi bodies of the country be suffi-
cient, as they- thiok, tq eontroul the administra-
tion of the government, whether it is not much
more calculated' * preserve the public peace, if by
manly remonaimions we endeavour to open the
eyes of erring or deluded men, than to shock and
irritate the common sense of mankind by defend-
ing en unjust and dangerous action.
It is asserted that Lord Grey declared, that if the
Queen were guilty of the offences alleged against: '