The National Register.
London, England, 1820-09-25 00:00:00

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER A 5, 1820.

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 popaii supretna lea" might
indeed apply, if the peace of the country could
be justly pleaded as depending upon not stirring
the business; and if there is even good ground Or
argument on the score of the public peace, Lord J.
Russell's state necessity involves only a Negative,
whereas a Bill of Pains and Penalties is a positive
injustice.

Of two evils it is a rule that we should chuse the
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 wore of public morality, by
which it is pleaded that a loose-living Queen would
hurt the morals of the country (which is at least
an uncertain consequence), whereas the evil to pub.
lie liberty is certain; or, to let the whole thing
alone? And, moreover, the appearance is likely to
do away very much the effect of supposed misconduct,
and bring the accused Queen more into public
favour than if she had been, without dispute, ad-
mitted to all the honour of her station. And if, for
argument's sake, it be admitted that some prosecu-
tion was necessary, there can be no question, that
the same power which violatera government of law
by an ex post facto law could al4 by %the same
power have adapted this prosesution, to the &dinary
forms and analogy of a judicial trial, and that a jury
of Peers, with a right on both sides (viz. the prose-
cutors and the prosecuted) to challenge, coulcl, have
been appointed (as Mr. Wilberforce has iatiniiited)
in a court similar to that of a Lord High Stestard
in impeachment, only with a limited numb 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, from the plain and manifest
connection of the Lords with the Crown, we consider
to be a position clearly untenable.

A Bill is to be pulsed, if possible, by the ITis-
lature, to which the King is to give his assent, either
by his own haod or by proxy (which is the same
thing) to the degradation, debasement, and injur;•
of her whom he has sworn at the altar of God to
love, honour, and cherish, as his wife, and the
Queen is to remain his wife thus degraded, disho-
noured, and uncherished by the husband. State
necessity is to supersede divine obligation !—Let the
sophistry of the Ministers escape from this perplexity
if it can : and lastly, if they plead for an excuse the

of the public , peace," we would
ask them, if the powers of controul vested in
the constitutional badies of the country be suffi-
cient, as they think, to controul the administra•
tint) of the government, whether it is not much
more calculated to preserve the public peace, if by
ninnly remonstrations we endeavour to open the
eyes of ening or deluded men, than to shock anti
icritate the common sense ti. mankind by defend-
ing an unjust and dangerous action.
It is asserted that Lord Grey declared, that if the
Qaeen were guilty of the ()dimes all,;ed against

II 11l 111