The National Register.
London, England, 1820-11-12 00:00:00

TILE NATIONAL REGISTER

T.ordshipa. hut content himself at present with protesting against
this, mite had done against every stage of the proceeding. He !
(Lord Darnley) had understood, both from the Noble Lord on
the Woolsack and the Noble Earl opposite,(Liverpool), that their
Lordships should attend thes proceestiozs die is diem, unless
ptevented by siekresss ; and that if any -Peer was absent during
an important pa-t of the trial, he should not be entitled to vote ;
and yet a Noble Lord had voted against the Queen who had not
heard her defence. The Noble had concluded by declaring,
that he would take this opportunity, sod every opportunity, of
giving every oppmition to the Bill.
After a few words front Lord Sheifi.ll, the Haase resolved
itself into a Committee.
The Earl of SII A ESFIU RY (the Chairman) putting the
question whether the discussion on the preamble isituuld be post-
poned ? the
Earl of LIVERPOOL would now read the preamble, and
state such alterations as Inn deemed neees,tiry; the first was, the
name of the individual who was so conspicuous in these proceed-
ing!: which he wished to be altered to • Barmbineu Bergami,"
mead of Bartholonio Pergarni. He would also move that the
words of the preamble, charging the Queen with having •• oh•
tainal for him orders of Knightlicied, and titles of honour,"
should ha struck out—not that he had any doubt of the fact, but
it had been proved in evidence. Ile would now conic to a Lllo6i
material part of the preamble, which stated, that " while her
Royal Highness hail the said Bartolomeo Bergami in her service,
she, unmindful of her exalted bitch and station. and regardless
of heruwn honour, conducted herself tawatds Beigami, in the
various places and countries W11,1%2 her II oyal Highness visited,
with indecent and offensive fa.niliarity mid Leedom." lie would
isiave that the ward •• the" 1ii10.11,1 be struck out, and that it
should stand, "in various places countries." Thesewere the
only alaeratinis lie deemed necessary, and lie would afterwards
Lee mansion to state, that the preainhle had Veen fully proved,
Lord ERSKINE. said, their Lordships were, is his opiniou,
going to strike out the only part of the preamble that was true.
Ile (Lord Erskine) did not believe that the degrading intercouse
with which the Queen was charged had been proved.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH inured 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 adulterous intercourse, and still that she was not
divorced. lie had no idea that the Bill would pass into a law.
Lord HARROWBY supported the words.
Lord ERSKINE observed, that the Noble Eatl had omitted
some things which were true, and certainly he might conseat to
the omission of those which were false. He considered the Pro-
test of her Majesty confirms/my evidence of her innocence; but
if their Lordships were determined to think her otherwise, how
could they deny she had been guilty of an adulterous intercourse
and refuse to divorce her, ll—(Hear, hear).
'file preamble was Men carried, and the HO'lie proceeded to'
discuss the Clauses.
THE DIVORCE CLAI3ISE.This clause having been
(Lead,
The Archbishop of YORK ruse. lie knew, he sai of no
religious expediency that could justify any thing of thit sort.—
Marriage was not a civil contract, but a sacral ordinance of reli-
gion, and he looked to the word of God as his guide in funning
an opinion upon this case. He could nut therefore vote for the
divorce. And yet, if the Home were to pass the Bill without the
divorce, the monstrous spectacle would be exhibited of a King
having foe his wife a degraded woman !—There was no possibi•
bulky of avoiding this extremity, withodt throwing out the Bill
altogether.—(Loud cries of hear, haat, hear.)-4t had been said
that regard for public morals. and the interests of religion, re-
quired the Bill should pass. Much more would the public morals,
and the interests of religion have been served, if the Bill had never
tbeen spoken of—(Hear, hear., hear.)—Thor nauseous publica!
lions would not have got into private society. It would be gra-
tifying io all goon men to hear mat the measure was tonally
abandoned ; but it would be gratifying to the enemies of order
to hear that it was persevered tn. fir concluded by praying to
God that he might not have to deprecate the contiutianee of the
Bill for the rest of his life.
The Bishop of CHESTER said, he believed the Queen to be
guilty; but be had voted for the second reading of the Bill, upon
the understanding that the Divorce Clause, was to be laid aside,
He should vote against that Clause, as he judged as lie would
wish to be judged.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY considered the charge of
adultery established against her lajesty, and, under that con-
viction, he had no objection of any description, least of all of a
religious nature, to the Bill proceeding in the form in which i
now stood. .

The Ilishcy of WORCESTER admitted that the quitsition of
the divorce was not without sonic difficulty; but, considering
how much the morals of the country were concerned in the mama
of this proceeding, he frlt bound to give his support to theßill.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF thought the Divorce clause
should be retained. He did not see any force in the objection
made uo it on :i religious ground ; for he knew of nothing in
the Christian religion against a dissolution of =thug.: fur
adultery.
The Bishop of LONDON agreed with his Right Reverend
Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury,) that Uivorees were
authorised by the words of our Saviour. As to any objection to
the divorce clause of the Bill, founded on the supposed conduct of
the complaining party, he thought it quite inapplicable. A great
constitutional principle was involved in the present case. The
King " could do nu wrong:" lie could not commit a fully, tar
less a chino; aild Cier:fure, recrimination was out of the toes.
Lion.—(Dear, heiti.,)
Lord LAUD DADE. with due submis.sion to thc opinions
which had l:illen fro:n the Reverend Bench of Bishops, toought
that tie House ought not to agile- to the divorce clause. lye
agm-.1 with what liar been so aWy urged on the subject by the
subject by the Learned Doctor who had spoken for tile defence,
(Dr. Luaningion.) that C:c law of iiiarri.ye was the battle with
regard to the 111;1116.st us to the lowest subject of the realm. If
her Majesty shook' choose to sue for divorce, the application
ought to b.r tried on t':e same lair elide as the uhsany ordinary
individual would be tried. 'Die Rev. Prelate who spoke 1::st,
seemed to think, that if adultery was proved the divorce clatiae
might lie prAetl, because ho facts had been paired against the
huaaan.l. The divorce clause appeared to him to be inconsistent.
Tile grotto:lJ on which he had voted fro the nicastirea were, that
the t. ueul was found guilty of crimes which rendered her mint
at the head of the of this country. lint the conduct
of the !Cie.; atigat be suet as not to cat itle him to a divorce.
Lord D.. 1 RN LEY said, nothing that lied fallen from the Rey
Be.ieh of llishopa had any influence on his mind. A Reverend
Prelate Ind said, there was nothing in the whole tizripture to
prevent dimrce ; but Scripture say:, " lie that putte. away
his wife, same for fornication, caus:th her a c.mnut atia..ery.
lye appealed to the House, if the Qacait wis: put away by her
and nut for the crime of turnicatioa, did he !nut cause
her to walnut adultery f And if $.ll, and ..e came for a divorce,
bow, they could their Lordships grant ;t ? lie felt that their
Lorvbhipa could pass tine Bill, either with or %knout the di-
vote::.

Lorl I tUSOl:;;III')It h: was sitrnis'A that the NoLle l•nrd
(Latideiiiale) had ii;eo , °prow: ilivorze clause. lie wind
not 1111 to that L. dttiot.utC of op:nion existed aiming I,e
Bev. Bench of Bishops; hat the k;r,..itvr number them were
unaNitootis. Th.! !louse ha.l tlclured that the gac.:n va„ net tit
0.• (2.icen con ,ort, and .heir Lordships ovied it to the cool:-
try. .uid to tneW0111:11 of the country, that she should not con•
thin:: the wife of the King.
Th B' Jiop of Ili Essr En said, no coirVeration whatever
would induce nun to pass the liLL with the divorce clause.
Lent iTz wILLIAM wits in every rvipect against the mea •
sure. lie expressed his surptise that the house should entertain
the idea of a divorce, when it had not beta applied lot by either
patty.—ilicar, lust.)

•

Lord LIVERPOOL said, that as he had observed before, he
was ready to give up toe clause relating to the divorce. if the
House thought it advisable to abandon that part of the measure.
The LORD CHANCELLOR still, that if some dame were
not introduced which would mo-t elfectually :,tyarate the part;es„
the Queen would be by the Bill, without the dtvorce, bound
more closyly to his Majesty.
Lord t)IJ NCA N said, the whole prac:aling; in that 110,133
weer ;;rounded un a conspiracy—Al-lea:, hear! Order ! Order!)
IL. ronld lay hio hand ou his heart, and ftarlcaly say, before
Got), that lie believed her MujeAy not guilty.
Tile Earl of SHAFTH.7;IIUIt Y. the Chairman, then reported
progress, and asked leave to sit again toonorrow.—Adjourned.
TRIAL OF lllat MAJESTY.
witusesuae, NOV. 8.
• ' '

The Howe rebuined ',wee:dings this morning at te•n
o'cl rc lc.
Lord Beresiord (recently retained Irvin Portagal) took
the °nail.

Among the. absentees from illness were Lords; Hints, the
Earl of airlimoon, and the Martinis of I lert for I.
After application taut been made by several Peers for per-
111 sign the pruteit av,,onst the BM, which ought to,
hay, been done yestel day, the 114111ile resolved 611, :t
Committee. AThe rchhi:hop of 'loam, the IS whops • I
licterburisco and Chester, earls opposed the divorce clan r.
Lord It ED LSI) ALL cu,.•nlered the iliarria;4e cootr.•••t
rather a, a religious vow than as a civil contract, and there-
fore that it could not he ilissolsc.l. If it was a contract, it
'quight be. ilinsol vial by 1111 l tual consent of the parties.
Auer it few remarks from low& Ausnn, ClirnaTVON Darn-
litteaborot4ll, &e. the Ifoiue resolsed itself taloa Cons-
: future on the Hill.

Archhish.ip of TUAM.—" My Lords, it is with the ut-
most pain that I offer myself to the notice of your Lordships,
which I should not have dune, hail it not beeu for the very
direct maoiier iu which the body, of which I furor a part,
were called upon by the Noble and Learned Lord who spoke
last yesterday. My Lords, I will refer you to the 39d verse
of the 3th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.
My mind has long been made up to vote agtiost the divorce
clause from that very verse, but if 1 can spew that the
illustrious lady whose conduct has beau so lung under con-
sideration had been put away by her husband, it I also sbew
from the holy scriptures a solemn denunciation (um the law
against such putting away, then shall I sliew sufficient
ground to induce me to Ville urainst the divorce clause,
which would release the King from his marriage contrast,
and leave him at liberty to marry again. That sects a put.
ting away of the wife did take place is abundantly evident
from the letter of the husband, to which alone I would beg
leave to refer. The denunciation to which I hove alluded
to is in the second chapter of tht Prophet Malachi, when for
literally putting away 'a wife, the face of the Lord was
turned away from the people, and he rag 'riled oat their
offerings. The temple resounded with the lamentations of
the womon ; and the Prophet established his charge against
them as,ceyiug sin, by reminding them of the first institution
of marriii4e. 'file God of Israel hall' said, he liateth all
putting away ;" My Lords, I stand here a most unwilling
judge is this cause, and I will candidly confess to your Lord-
ships, that nothing, but force and the heavy peoalties which
your Lordships have atta •111.1 to ahs t ce, would have coin.
pelted me to attend this distressing iovestigatiou. I Maya
voted for the second reading of this Bill, because no other
measure was before the House, in which I could declare
that a clear, satisfactory, and irresistible case had been
made nut of the guilt of the Queen. But as to this divorce
clause, my Lords, I can never reconcile myself to give it my
sanction; and if it goes out of this Committee as part of the
Bill, I cannot give it my further support ; fur I would rather
have the conduct of tar Queen is p unotbliccd, 10411 that a
divorce should he added to her degradat tool.
The iiis:sop or VC; ILEABOILOUtioII had never in his life
entered into the examination of any question alto inure
nosiety than hr hid as to whether the divorce clause shoo!:
stand part of toe bill. Ile was iiklitklS that it should be
omitted, although ha lead nu doubt of the legality of the
clause. 'Ube ohjectioos were principally tit u religious
nature; but marriage is Fth it civil us well us a religious
tract and he thought these Civil rights might be sospended.
lie was MA sulhcicuUy acquainted a oth forms of law to sug-
gest such a clause in a speoatie form, but as the Noble Lord
at the head of the Treasury had alluded to sum,thing of the
saw. sort esterday, he would leave it in his h nods.
The Archbishop of l'Olt K said, iw an advocate for the
sanctity of the marriage cootroet, and th reciprocal obli-
gations which resulted from that unera, he could not recon-
cile to his conscience, under alt the circumstances of the
pcesent case, nil vote for inz divorce clause.
Lord REULSDA LE was of opinion that the divorce
sirould be retained, us its operation extended to the
legiti-
notion of children. It the clause was given up, he would
he glad too know what was to be substituted, which world
not hove the elre,:t of a divorce, however it might ll.' killk,ll
The LOUD CHAN:A.:ILO:I said, in co.juittaioal ismth
leis Nook Friend (Lord Liverpool), he Dad pledged,
himself out to press the clause, if there seemed to be a
Iltliff'o+4oll aganost it in the U tou• •. If their lalkdalsiiis should
Ihiul. plover too limit the diviner clause, another einschuent
certainly most he introduced, of a siauitiir t cudency, other.
ise the ponies vs °old be 11,1tillll inure closely together thou
evi. r.

`.l.iirti:s of I..‘NSI)O E pi utesied it,.taiiist the re-
co,oution of any ;iron-wit: which itermtled a %militia to
ex.st as the st.fent the h.it.4 w.tLcot Lwi.ig like cum.°, t in the
a ealm.—(Hcar, Itrar, hear, ht. to 1.) --Ile tilt the ohj, ctorue
tutt,:e It) wale ul the Leatated Plel.tleb, hat he cooltl 'hot
shut tiis e1(.3 to tie great State S.:tjeetwas to their v,e 4' of
the quest too. After h tviii admitted, that such a mode of
pros, ethog nes due to the K iug 43.1 the Cowl, cy,k, to•gged
the.i lati.dslops to comidcr the sitnattois of the the
even: of uni.t,ting the clause. Her Alaje-ty would he 418. p.
pelf u. nil Itle der', ittle fro!ti acr Cli•lnleter 4,4
blibject 1./ 1111 the Jt,atishti s 1.1 %hid) 1/.IC Lnl
reeo red, and at the store ismr he exintsed to the authority of
hmliand , whine she eats thin iv, d of has protectiou,—( I Itatr,,
heai.)— Re felt it irii,t iy tu declare, th toe eintlitleta.4l the
disuse inherent its the 11111, tunt of nect,y,ary consequence
that the nicasute must pa, as It lista, or he exetweil
to the introduction of ill.; 1/1.1110211: WlUlllitl:CS M hill N !itch
it ;daddy isticaiii,o,a.—( II ear, heart)
Lora Is !mid, h felt Into.elf la a ttiluati at of ruth r
an est. attedito tr) ktaa upott the quest ttttt a.w the thatts,•,
ltiett , telly pat tietietted still' hint its Vial reelitt:.
looking 10 the
the cao.iln,h,: coal I
IRA bras:..
by reports which had imadi need tutu rospecolly, the conduct
of the t4neem lle coisfessed that he had the a enkneds to
thine reports. Indeed it wn, impossible for
ter him to have duue Other Sae ; 101, at the period to a his h
he had alluded, it Was said that the Queen had b.tu gaity
of the greatest indecencies, rut with Bergami, but with
otheihiersons; that her at Blarkheath had been
(Eve oaitiovnilapi ire P",:e 366.3

...Li. L ..