The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

; 'edged by some of the Members of that House,
who aloe belonged to Administration, that Minis.
tees would be glad of Anon any mean, for
getting out of the serape in which they considered
themselves, by bring compelled to proceed with the
Bill. Was it possible then for their Lordships to
believe that this was • case in which (it had already
balm admitted that it could not be brought before
the ordinary tribunals) there were reasons of public
danger that compelled their Lordships to proceed?
Let their Lordships look at the peculiar circum-
stances which accompanied this ease, at the ob-
vious proofs which they had that the country in
general felt no interest in the prosecution of ;t,
hut rather the contrary. if, indeed, the Noble
Earl who moved the Order of the Day would
state to the House the matter of public danger
involved in the charge—or if that Noble Earl
really apptehended danger from abandoning the
Bill, after what hod taken place, and would state
the circumstances of his fetes so as to satisfy his
mind—he might be induced to support the coo-
tainance of the proceedings. But there was before
their Lordships not even the shadow of such an
opinion. He strongly invited the attention of the
' House to the situation of the Queen, is situation by
no means suitable for • person of her high rank.
She had been left in circumstances of the utmost
difficulty. He laid no blame on any of the parties.
These things might have been merely the result of
human, mid perhaps of mutual infirmities. But
her Majesty had been kept for a long course of
years in exclusion from her Royal Consort, from
-the late Queen and her Court (from which her pre-
sent Majesty hod been forbidden), and from the
whole of the Royal Family. She had been thus
placed in • situation the most defenceless, one
which more than any other subjected her to the
perils of those infirmities of her nature of which he
had before spoken. If, in such a siitedion, she
had erred, it must have been under circumstances
which would call for the commiseration of every ,
individual from the highest to •the lowest. But
this was not the question for their Lordships ;
they were confined to the bare consideration of
how for public policy was concerned in proceeding
to examine the conduct of her Majesty. They
had as yet heard nothing to strengthen their •de
upon that question, and as to the case of real
guilt which he had just put, it was a case merely of
assumption. Their Lordships had heard nothing
tasted, nor had any thing been offered which could
satisfy them of the probability of a criminal charge
being established. But admitting for a moment the
truth of the charge, which, as he maintained was not
yet even insde,t hat ought not to be sufficient to induce
their Lordships to undertake a scrutiny of facts
and evidence, the result of which would be most
likely to deprave the public morals, end spread
disgust or contamination throughout the country.
If the case were well founded it ought not to be
proceeded against by that mode of trial. But what
was the charge ? The Bill before the House, in-
stead of displaying strong grounds of prosecution,
magnified evils and crimes, supported by at least
direct assertion, contained no one statement of per-
petrated offences. Three were a variety of vague
and almost silly charges, such as that of raising an
obscure individual to &Auction, and heaping ho.
nours upon him. Ben if this were criminal. where War
the line to be drawn between proper and improper
distinctions ? Were there no persons of obscure
parentage and of humble fortune who had been
advanced to the honours of the State, and that
too very deservedly, whose first claim, perhaps,
was no greater than dist of having served some
who were able to promote them with zeal and
fidelity ? Was England a country wherein to
set up the exclusive claims of high birth to the
honours of the State ? The only appearance of •
criminal charge, which was coupled with this and
other topics of trifling grivence in the Bill, was
that which implied the crime of adultery. But
if that charge were 'merit to be maintained, why
was is not stated distinctly ? If it were said in
reply that the charge of adultery could not be
proved, but that conduct little short of convicted
adultery could be proved, he would then put it to
the ministers of the church and those of the law
who heard him, to say, if they ever knew any other
grounds upon which • divorce hod been allowed
than that of adultery proved in the very fa'ct ? If
that were the charge, it should have been stated
with such plainness, that the illustrious accused
might have been enabled to meet it. If that
were not the charge, there could be none at all
sufficient to give grounds for passing the Bill.
He would express no opinion upon the conduct of
the Queen. All that lie would say upon it would
amount to no more than that which was generally
known, as it was a subject of almost general agree-
ment, that to proceed with the questiou could lead
to no good. The ohjections to the measure were
general, having been expressed in every part of the
country. For their Lordships to proceed might
have the effect of irritating the feelings of the pub-
lic to • dsegerrius degree of hest, but without pro..
bsbility of effecting any degree of public good. He
objected to calling in Counsel.
Earl GREY said, that when his Noble Frieud
stated his objections generally to Bills of Pains sad
Penalties, he must accede to all such objections.
But when it was proposed by another Noble Friend
of his, without any reopens having been given to
rescind an order which had been deliberately
entered on their Lordships' Journals, and to
give up the discussion of • subject, which, how-
ever painful, had beets undertaken after grave and
deep deliberabou and debate upon it, lie could not
so readily assent. The difficulty of soiling on the
question would be'peinful to him as to others. But
while he subscribed to all general objections against
Bills of Paiiisaod ramifies, and while he felt the pain-
fu leers of voting or epee ki eg on that before the House,
lie still felt himself bound to admit that there was
a law in the wisdom of Parliament, which, in came
not clearly cognisable by other tribunals, and yet
requiring as nutter of expediency that the.guilt
should be visited, ought to be extended to euchre-
traordivary cases, and ought to furnish that remedy
which could not be obtained by an application
to the ordinary Courts of law. The general
objections which he felt to Bills of Pains and
Penalties must, therefore, give way in a case
wherein it could be proved! to him, that if such a
Bill were not introduced there could be nothing
done for the attainment of justice. His Noble
Friend lad demon4id what pubh,c grounds then
woe for Ibis NlVinikup4tad stated that•much
ftit>wi tell

~a ~~

.::~..~,