The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

entereti Mollie qiiestloti how before the lionse
Under these circumstances the Bill' was brought
in, and that day Was fixed for the second reading,
in order to afford an opporkunity for hearing, (
counsel and evide ce in favba. and' • ainst it...
If they • Id e art see their 4i to ' Mother 7-x
ti o deeds, .N' I.C. VS, ra i „ thef,4l
Ah II teatlr 2 w , • ad
11/4
; tit, nle*
that Was the ease, he wou d submit that no good
purpose could be atiswered.lliintirtupting'd PO'
.ceeding- which-promised the most speedy terrdi''
oation, and was in every. respect adequate to the
ittis of impartial justice,. He was not disposed
to.ditferfrem either of the Noble Earls as, to
heir, opinions respecting Bills of -Pains and-Pei
naltieS:- - INhere could be Clear -course Of trial,-
it-it-Mild be -preferable 'to such- proceedings; but,
it-there-'was'atty thing in 'the legal' argunieht, all
proceedingginight be destroyed by a' mere- tech-,
niitil-ajectimi.• -The' preient was, tattler all the
circumstances, the fit course to adopt. There
wasical fiet,- only that- and impeachment, add
this difficulty presented itself in the latter course,
that,. if, adultery •was not a high crime and mss''
demeanour by the law of the land, an impeach-.
mentecould .not. he conducted; Suppose, then,
than question-was referreetto the Judges-4 and
that the answer of those learned.persons denied it
to belthigh crime and-misdemeanour ; it was true
that their Lordships might,as in the-case-of Dr. Sad
cheverel, decide against theopinien of the Judges
but still the ease-must be prejudiced in soate mew' . I
sure by that opinion.' Every oneof the argument;
which. had. been used against the mode of pro-
ceeding in general would -apply to every case of
divorce that was-brought before their Lordships.,
In all those cases what had they done ?• There
had unfortunately been cases ihwhich the wives
of ,Members of that house had been dirorcA
and- had . thereby lost their-rank and privileges? ;
What had their.. Lordships" done in those CaSt‘s
Had they not degraded the wives ? Had. thief
not inflicted a's7great-m7-pcmishment;-alloirance
being made for.- the imparity, of, the situation of
the. Queen and of those ladies, as it teas DOW pro'
-
posed t o inflict ?• - Inthose cases, indeedohe,
House demanded the fullest proof of fact-0(
adultery, and in thivcase. he
er trusted they would
•
not proceed to pass- th. Bill. without equitil-1
strong 'proof, Was not every DivorCe Bill ea
ex post facto law ? It was not the .laW of the Land/
that a, woman should be divorced even for-adel"
tery'; for though the:Ecclesiastical Courts could'
pronounce a separation bf the -Parties,it.iyfts ndt'
ln fact a divorce from the tie Of matrimony'. What
then, was: every 'Bill of Divorce, hut in spine,
degree-a. contravention of the law of the land
What was it but punishment inflicted for an
act which the law did:not expressly declare
to be criminal ?- Yet the House did pass such,
Bills,, looking always to -the evidence, and this,
Bill also thepwould•not pass; except on sufficient
Eividence. He did not mean. to say that there u-35
not a great difference between ordinary Divorce
Bills and this Bill. But not as to this qtiestion ;.
indeed his __ argument was strengthened by
difference.- The present Bill. had la ptib'ic ch,V
mt(rtialiallet.dtit
ditrui
la;leili,isEt
ill:I:Fr :goy.
lantisnsoi was-not
-on
arguments
) account
hiepiceaoo.stsisrltetrodti
injury
erriii::,:jhuitstr.oo,y.
rttith.
t(i)..:str
if tit,tiilr:t;::
would say that they would 'degrade One ''ivelii'
dual fot-the-sak-ti•Of tinother.-hliw snitch tti. r'.l;
titer should they do:it 'for th'sake of the State •
If the .queStion were, however,-tuerelv to- 1.4 rt''
ferred to the Judges- for the sitiSfaction of thl
House,-as to the'regularity' of its proceedings./ l'e
should have no objection to it, norshouldhe Ictsc
the least delicacy as to retracing
was.thought that another m0de....0f prticeedit
were more constitutional. But he should objec
to it if it was intended merely tOttelay -or SIP'
Pend the measure. • his • steps if ix
The Marquis of LANSDOWN begged leave t'l
state: his reasons for acquiescing in-the course re,
commended by his Noble Friend (Earl G'o,:o'
—lVith respect to the geneiat nature of :the }P-:'°'
ceeding recommended .by Ministers, he .c 0.111:
not go the _length' of. affirming, :though hekne;.. •
many- persons in and out'of' the llonseaffirmil
that in no. case whatever should Bills of .1-'8'"0:
and Penalties-be introduced into or attempted .le.,
be' passed through Parliament. With ill 11, .
inconveeieuces and. hardships attaching to see!: ;
measures, the extent of which he was as well awa't
of-as—wry of--thernii he felt-cottscientieusly.,th-o`f ,
the house could net safely.
,ghee" up
,the pol,i:e,z; '
introducing' such -Bills; that iii- to -deinglthe,;.
1,,
inight give ,up
.4privilege whielf„ in ealitft'l .:
, 1 - safes'
ytne4,:might be matte the foundation of tne.t ';
. and- happiness of the State. It-was a Pc'.,:
which he felt it his"ditty -to defend and prOcell:,
convinced that in. some, conjunctures it might...mot,
directed to the preservation of the country p.-:,,d
it was for their Lordships, tO'cOnsider thelerd.' • r-
, . -ded f°
. upon which such Bills were' recommen , ~,
their 'adoption. lie wished the house t° rf.,.;
collect, the ground on . which this Bill' had 1;;;;
recommended to• them, and on which dici,
they had .eotertained it. The Bill it'd 1)0,14
received ow the allegation .of the Noble
,eO,
opposite, ' and
;of . 1113 Majesty's "AthliSrtber
OD. their responsibility,' that the.re was PP Two
way of visiting the -clime. alleged to have 4 to,
committed, and. which public justice' ought
visit.. It was on this 'ground alone. that yo'f..
Lordships had received the present Bill and O,,
kfte•rieldoiilt ttohelleinoenastuhle,ei
sr table.i)repa
duction •of this Bill, which had excited 0 ~_
• dWl' ' ' '
prejudice throughout the country, an
tie od
, ~ . • •
rrejudice, as he feared, still existed.
.11 was.
not objected to it, 'as it was said the C 1-.°'vg oto
y
driven to the necessity of having. rec°llo ae-
ralti(enttiobtelft°ereidstoPrcl;
-such a measure, and that nothing else w" thole
-swerthe purpose.- Haying this Bill.befare with'
they were.now about to proceed to cealP.!Y:,:ilito
a former Order of the House, and to iniqu'r 1.3 e-;
the evidence that ,was to sapport• the chle.
riister' •
fore the Bill went to a second reading -1) 1 o'.
'her
were' botthd • seriously to consider. Nvnet
the oe--
furnished the.',OnlV means by' which ' Vie
' pet in view could be accomp 1. lied A todeJ
question proposer hy'his Noble Frien";o for
II
to enable the
-.Ouse to form au optu,o