The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-07 00:00:00

THE QUEEN'S PROTEST.

The following is given as a correct Copy of
TILE QUEEN'S PROTEST :
" The QUEEN has learnt the decision of the
Lords upon the Bill now before them. In the
face of Parliament, of her Family, and of her
Country, she does solemnly protest against
it. Those who avowed themselves her Pro-
secutors have presumed to sit in judgment
upon the Question between the QUEEN and
themselves. Peers have given their voices
against her, who had heard the whole
evidence for the charge, and absented themselves
during her defence. Others have come to the
discussion from the Secret Committee with minds
biassed by a mass of slander, which her enemies
have not dared to bring forward in the light.

" The Quzzx does not avail herself of her
right to appear before the Committee ; for to her
the details of the measure must be a matter of
indifference ; and, unless the course of these un-
exampled proCeedincrs should bring the Bill be-
fore the other branch of the Legislature, she will
make no reference whatever to the treatment ex-
perienced by her during the last 25 years.
c‘ She now most deliberately, and before God,
asserts that she is wholly innocent of the crime
laid to her charge ; and she awaits, with unabat-
ed confidence, the final result of this unparalleled
investigation."

After a long, patient, and solemn investigation
of the Charges against THE QUEEN, a Majority
of the House of Lords has decided in favour of
the Second Reading of the Bill. It would ill be-
come us to offer any opinions, pro or con, on this
important but lamentable subject. We have in-
serted a corrected List of the Lords who vofed
on both sides of the Question, and shall leave the
people at large to weigh the evidence, and to es-
timate the characters of the respective Voters.
But as our Competitors have obligingly favoured
the public with their sentiments on the subject,
in order to direct the judgment of the nation, we
shall content ourselves at present with referring
to our Extracts from the LONDON JOURNALS of
this Day.

TIER MAJESTY attended the House of Lords
this day; and went by the way of Charing Cross.

SECOND EDITION•

SUN-OFFICE, Half-past Four,

HOUSE OF LORDS, Nov. 7.

After receiving THE QUEEN'S Protest with

some objections, stated in the form of a Resolu.

Lion, respecting the language of it, the House
resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Some verbal Amendments were made on the

Motion of the Earl of LrvErtroor, in the

preamble of the Bill, and the House then

proceeded to the discushion of the Divorce clause.

This clause was opposed amongst other Lords,

by the Archbishop of YORK, the Bishop of

CHESTER, the Earl of HARROWBY, and the Earl

of LIVERPOOL, and supported by the Archbishop

of CANTERBURY and the LORD CIIANCELLOII.

When the last mentioned Noble Lord had finish.

ed speaking, the question was put upon the

Clause, and the House 'were about to divide,

when some Noble •Lords wishing for 4 further

discussion, it was agreed to report progress, and

sit again at Ten o'Clock to-morrow morning
Adjourned.

THE QUEEN returned a little after two o'clock,
HER MAJESTY had a conference with her Coun4
sel in his private apartment, but did not enter the! -=

_LONDON JOURNALS.

[DAILY E_YTRACTS.]

FROM TIIE MORNING PAPERS.

[New. Times,'
• After an admirable speech by Lord Grenville,
th,e question of the Second Reading was yester-
day decided by a majority of 1c...)3 to 95. Here
,then were 123 Peers who must of necessity have
believed the Queen guilty of. Adulteiy. But of
the 95, how many believed her innocent ? We
.apprehend not ten. The greater part of -the
votes were given ostensibly because the Noble
Peters thought the Bill impolitic, inexpedient,
-unconstitutional ; or,. at the utmost-, because
they did not like to condemn on circumstantial
proofthey wished for direct proof in a case of
adultery! In addition to the admissions .men-
tioned yesterday; as made by Peers who voted
against-the Bill, we must:notice the following:—

Lord CALTFTWIPE was. of opinion, Mat very gross and de•
gr(,ciusr con:na hid been proved against her MAJESTY.
Yuri Gosrti.:l), although he thought the Bill objectionable,
ackiittedj that her MAsEeTY'SCO,Itilla bad been very disgrace•
jai ; and

- Lord GRANTHAM said, though he should deem it his duty to
the country to say " Not-Content" to the Bill, hr could not
place his hand on his heart and say " Not Guilty."
This; then, is the situation in which we stand :
with a Queen, stigmatised by the opiniotls of pro-
bably nine-tenths of the Peerage ! After this,
will the Whig. Ladies forfeit their_ own charac-
ters by visiting her Majesty ? Let then] do ;so;
but let them not suppose that they can dOlt, and
rctain their rank in society. Let "them do so
but let them remember that they record against
themselves a sentence of degradation equal to that
-which is irrevocably passed upon the Queen by
the vote of yesterday.

[Morning Chronicle.]
At length judgment is given in the important
cause of the Government, or, as Ministers call it,
of the State, against her Majesty the Queen; and
this verdict is pronounced on the Anniversary of
the Death of laMented Daughter! The num-
bers for the second reading of the Bill of Pains.
and Penalties were, Contents, P-23; Not Con-
tents, 95. This division will be scrutinized as it
ought to be, that its. true character may be
ascertained. On the first reading of the names,
it will be manifest that, excluding the actual
Accusers of her Majesty (who ought not to
have voted as Judges), together N with the oble
Peers, who hold places by themselves or near
relatives during pleasure," there is a majo-
rity of Independent Peers against the. Bill—and
this majority comprehends the greater stake of
property, as well as of influence, in the kingdom..
If-it were possible to regard the decision of yes-
terday in any other light than that of a Ministe-
rial white-washing, the verdict, in a judicial
sense of the word, is an acquittal of the Queen.
Compare the Tribunal to a Court below, and the
verdict of a Jury, where so many of the Jurors
'Were for acguiteal, would be an acquittal, since
''glare doubts exist in the minds of so many, the
rest of the Fellow-Jurors constantly yield to the
side of mercy. In fact, with such a strength of
opinion against this, tremendous and•truly radi-
cal. Bill, it cannot be persisted in, and we should
suppose that Ministers having obtained the vote
of yesterday, for their own justification as to the
inquiry, will have the. prudence to withdraw it,.
and prevent the awful mischiefs with which it is
pregnant. AVe forbear to enter more at length
into the subject this day, because we know that
the impression on the.public mind is intense, and
we are d,eSirons of avoiding all commentary that
may add to 'the irritation. .

Upon examining the division in the Lords
.yes-
terday we find that, excluding the nine Ministers
who are the authors of the Bill and the 'prosecu-
tors of the Queen, that of the hereditary Nobles
who derive the right of voting from their birth,
there was a majority against the motion. ; for
among the majority of yesterday .we find eleven
Bishops, seven Representative Peers for Ireland,
and live.for Scotland, all of. whom are elective—
every one. of whom, too, owes his election to
the Minister of the day. We never, indeed, re-
member an instance in which a Representative
Peer for either Scotland or Ireland was•elected
whose politics were adverse to those of the ex-
isting administration, and we know how the
Bishoprics are disposed. Deducting them from
the .majority of yesterday, the Elective Peers
with the Ministers, and about sixteen Placetnen,
who are removable at the King's pleasure, com-
bined with the chosen Members of the Secret
Committee who originally recommended the
how stands the majority ?—(lbid.)

[Morning Post.]
Happily the result of yesterday's Proceedings
was the reverse of all that the factious so, fondly,
portended, and the Peers of Britain, unawed by
popular clamour or ferocious threat, have nobly
done their duty. The die is at length cast, and
the• conviction of the " Supreme Judges of Eng-
land," that the Queen has rendered herself infa-
mous by an adulterous intercourse and a long
course of disgusting licentious familiarities with
a menial in her service,will serve to hand her name
down to posterity with marked ignominy and
everlasting disgrace. One great consideration in
respect to this case is, that it clearly has not been
made a Ministerial question, and that Royal in-
fluence has not in the remotest degree been exer-
cised on the occasion. If Ministers possess in-
fluence over any Noble Lords, they have obviously
and magnanimously disclaimed the use of it on
, this great national inquiry. Yet, with so many
of their friends, and even of their own most im-
mediate connections, voting against the second
reading of the Bill, on the.timid and dangerous
principle of expediency (though at the same time
declaring their conviction of the Queen's guilt),
their view of the subject has been confirmed by
a majority of 113 to 95, which, under these cir-
cumstances, must be deemed considerable.. In-
deed, w hen the motives of the Peers who have
voted-agabist the Bill are properly viewed, it
-*ill be seen that had the decision of their Lord-

ships been the other way, there would still have
been. no vindication of the fallen Lady's fame—
no triumph for her friends—no escape for her
Majesty from indelible disgrace. Those who de-
clared they could not say 44 Content" to the
Bill could not lay their bands on their hearts,
and say of the Queen that she was ".Not
Guilty." It is her misery to find that those who
"would screen her from the Bill of Pains and Pe-
nalties consign her to infamy. We do not wish
to aggravate the bitterness of the punish
meat which now falls on the unhappy cul-
prit in this case ; but when it is remem-
bered with what wanton insolence she has been
accustomed to asperse all who were guilty of the
crime of loyalty, it mush be seen that it is cha-
rity and not justice, that dictates forbearance, in
this the day of her deep humiliation. On the
whole the result of yesterday's proceedings must
be deemed the triumph of candour as well as of
justice—the seal of Party as well as of guilt ; for
let our Readers examine the lists of the votes as
scrupulously as they may, and with a few excep-
tions (Lords Grenville and Lauderdale standing
conspicuously
.as bright examples of truth and
justice) they will find that the Opposition have
clung together with as much tenacity as has ever
distinguished the blindest and bitterest rage of
faction.

[The Times.]
We know not whether we are to address her
Majesty the Queen of England in terms of con-
gratulation or condolence., upon the first grand
division on the Bill for her degradation. Her
enemies are sensible that it is a,deafeat which they
have „sustained : her Majesty may feel that she
has received. an insult ; but, there is this differ-
ence between her Majesty's situation and that
of her enemies—that the country laughs at
their disappointment, and sympathizes in her
imperfect triumph. Her Majesty may well,
however, be consoled, when she is assured that
earth never contained female purity against which
a greater majority might not have been obtained
by the same arts. Years after years have been
spent in the constunmation of this grand plot. It
would have taken less of human labour, less of
human perfidy, it would have required Less time,
it would. have imposed the traversing of less
space, it would have consumed Jess money, to
have proved the angelic nature vicious and corrupt.
The bells of England may ring .a merry peal.
Good God! is, it for such a result as this that the.
Milan Commission was established, and has ,been
in operation for years •in order to .buy ups
organiie, arrange, and get ready .for the Bar,
every species' of testimony (but honest and ho-
nourable} from every quarter of the globe ? Was
ever Lady thus assailed Was the human life
ever thus jeopardied ? And all for what ? For
a nominal majority of 28, in which number
are included
_the accusers, and some Judges
who had: never .heard the defence ! The divi-
sion was—For the .Bill, 113—Against it 95
Majority, 28.—There are various ways of con-
templating this majority, all equally -satisfac-
tory to the Queeu, and to the Country, and all
equally .evincing the triumph oilterMakosty. First,
there was a majority of live Out of the Irish Re-
presentative Peers ;.the numbers being fr for the
Bill, and 6 against it. There was a minority of
seven Scotch Representzaive Peers, nine being
for the Bill, and only twa against it. There was
a majority of eleven Bishops, twelve being for the
Bill, and one against it. The sum total of these
majorities: is .twenty-three voters, making no part
of the hereditary English Nobility. If -we add
to these the nine Cabinet Ministers, the aggre-
gate will be thirty-twb, which, being, deducted
from thenominal majority in favour of the Bills
leaves the other side 'greater, by four, in favour
of the Queen, and against the Bill. It has been
said also, that not only the Duke of Newcastlei
but that two other Lords, voted for the con-
demnation of her whose defence they never heard.

[British Press.]
The opinion of the House of Lords collec-
tively has at length been taken on the question
of the second reading of the Bill of • Pains and
Penalties. Yesterday, at about twenty minutes
after three o'clock, their Lordships divided, when
the question was curried in the affirmative, by a
majority of only 28 ! ! The house was unusually
full, the number of Peers present being no less
than 218 ; and when we reflect upon the pecu-
liar circumstances attending the adjudication of
this case, who is there in the country that will
not regard a majority so inconsiderable on the
second reading, as a triumph on the part of her
Majesty ? A majority of only 28 in the House
of Lords, the attendance of Members being
full, has ever been considered equivalent to
a defeat of the Ministers of the Crown, be-
cause in that Assembly the personal influence
of the Ministers, the presence of their friends,
the well-understood wishes of the Sovereign, and
the power of patronage, are generally known
to, be more immediately operative than in the
House of Com Mons, in fact, remove from the
numbers on the side of the majority-the names of
the Members of the Cabinet, of their immediate
relatives and connections, and of the. Meilbers
who formed the Secret Committee, and whose
judgment in deciding upon.the evidence adduced
at the bar, must, from that previous examination
of ex parte evidence, have been most injuriously
warped-7-remove these names from the side of
the majority, and the majority and -minority will
quickly change places. And in proposing-the
removal of such names, do we require more than
in strict justice belongs to the Illustrious Ac-
cused ? In what other Aribunal upon earth,
boasting the attribute of justice, would it 'be per-
mitted that the Prosecutors should argue •tititi
vote as Judges of the Accused ? In no other
Court in England would it be permitted that the
Grand Jury, represented in these proceedings by
the Secret Committee, should with minds-im-
pressed. by a secret ex parte trial, where no ex-
planations were had, no counter-testimony - re-
ceived, no witnesses cross-examined, subsequently
-mingle With the Petty Jury, and mislead -their.
fellow Jurors. "by their own impressions, in.cor-
rectly- fortuid but 'firmly pr6ierved. The prin-

ciples of natural justice would demand the ab-
sence of the Queen's accusers-; the principles of
our own law would equally require the removal
of the Secret Committee who placed her in a state
of accusation: Had the Illustrious Accused
moved in a less elevated sphere, the laws of this
country would have extended to her such advan-
tages ; not only would her accusers have
been removed from the Jury box, but even such
friends and relatives of her accusers as might be
supposed to feel a strong interest in their suc-
cess, and a proportionate anxiety to effect her
,conviction. All such persons she might have
challenged ; and will not the common sense and
justice of the country extend to her, in her ele-
vated rank, the same measure of protection which
the law would have secured to her in au hum-
bler and less invidious station ? The power and
influence of her Accuser ought to awaken every
suspicion, and teach the public the necessity of
flinging around her every protection which huma-
nity, generosity, and justice could dictate.