The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-09 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET NOVEM BFA MEETING, 1820.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 8.
Mr. Payne's Paralus, 9st. beat Mr. Bouverie's Busby,
7st. i2lb.A.b.Nl. 100579.-6 to 4 rrgst Paralus.
A Subscription Handicap Plate of 501. for three• yr-olds and
upwards. Ab. M.
Mr. Crockford's eh. c. Brutus, 4 yrs, Sst .
Sir C. Bunbury's in. C. by Sorcerer, S yrs, 7st. 1211)..,..
• Eleven Starred.—The Judge placed but two.
Mr. Bouverie's Bushy, 7st. 1311). beat D. of Graftouli
Carbon, Bst. 711). AILM 45gs.—Even betting ors Busby.

AGRICULTURE.

MEETING OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FARMING.

SOCIETIES OF TDB COUNTY CORK.

This day a Meeting of the Noblemen and Gen-
tlemen connected with the above valuable Insti-
tutions was held at their room,in the house of the
Cork Institution, for the purpose of petitioning
Parliament to adopt some measure to relieve the
present depressed state of agriculture in the south
of Ireland. It was numerously and respect-
ably attended. Lord CARIVERRY was called
to the Chair, and he shortly addressed the
meeting on the objects for which they were as-
sembled. '

WM. W. NEWENHAM, Esq. opened the bus.
ness in an appropriate speech, and was followed
by Col. Hoonca, and several other gentlemen—
%viler! Mr. NEWENHAM moved, that a Petition to
Parliament be prepared, to represent the preseht
state of the agricultural distress.
GEaARD CALLAGHAN, Esq. then addressed the
Meeting at consi:lerable length, in which he took
an able, accurate, and comprehensive view of the
causes which operated for the moment to throw-
some difficulty on all the general and leading
interests of the Empire,especially the agricultural
—but he said there was no cause for desponding,
and he considered the worst period as having
nearly passed by. Ile concluded by moving as
an amendment, that a Committee of fifteen be ap-
pointed to meet on to-morrow se'nnight, and to
make a report at en adjourned meeting of the
best remedies which to them may seem expedient
to remove the existing embarrassment on the
►agricultural interest. The proposition was, after
long, desultory, and in some degree, angry dis-
cussion, adopted. Several Gentlemen took a
share in the debate.—(Cork Paper, Nov. 5.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR has issued cards of
invitation for a grand dinmer party, to take place,.
at his house in Hamilton-place, on the 22d inst.
Yesterday, a watch-maker, named William
Wallace, was examined at Hatton-garden,
Police Office, charged by about twenty watch
and clock-makers with unlawfully pawning an
immense number of clocks and watches, their pro.
perty. The prisoner was remanded for a week.

TIIE LONDON JOURNALS.

[DAILY EXTRACTS FROSI THE MORNING PAPERS.]

[New Times.]
The DIVORCE CLAUSE has passed the House of
Lords by a majority-of 129 to 62 ; and according
to a list which has.been published, •it should ap-
pear, that most of the Ministers were% on this
point, in the Minority. On the expediency of
this clause, under all the circumstances of the
case, we shall offer no opinion : on its legality,
e have elsewhere stated nur sentiments under
the head of the Christian .Law of Divorce. The
question-of the Queen's guilt or innocence may
now be considered as finally decided. While
not one of the Members of Opposition grounded
his vote upon his moral. conviction of her limo—,
ence—and while numbers of those who opposed
the Bill, at the same time pronounced her Guilty,:
.the has passed by a majority of twenty-
e•ight voices. Her Majesty's hired writers.: have
already begun a clamour at this majority. It is
composed,- say they, of the Ministers themselves,
'who prosecute—and of the Committee " who
found the Bill." The ,false Mod of these asser-
tions is-manifest on the. face of them. The num-
ber.. of the Ministers who sit in the House of
Lords is nine. The-Secret Committee contained
four of these Noblemen (whom these sapient
Gentlemen readily count twice), and several of
the other Ministers have voted against the Bill. But
should the Ministers have voted at all ? On
this question we would offer a few observatiops.
It, is obvious that the only reason that can be
offered against their voting i 3, that upon the suc-
cess of the prosecution may be thought to depend
their continuance in °Jae.' But does not the
same argument go to exclude equally all those,
to whom the failure of the Bill would be tanta-
mount to an accession to office) Supposing Lord
Liverpool to be forced to resign—does not every
politician in London feel himself able to say, who
would be likely to supply his place? And is it
likely that the individuals themselves can be less
dear sighted ? O,• is it probable that their thirst
for office should be a less -active and propelling
motive of action than another man's fondness for

place and power Is an attack generally con

ducted with less keenness., and vigour, and per-
. tinacity, than a defence ? In fine—are there not
commonly three expectants of office for one pos-
sessor ? Seeing then that it must be utterly im•
possible to banish all feeling of this kind frotr
the tribunal, we must conclude that all partial

.attempts, and all plans for excluding any.. bias
towards one side, and for leaving it in existence
on the other, must be worse than nugatory.

[The Tines.]

The proceeding; yesterday With respect to the
Queen will afford amusement at the end of this
dull play. After various intimations from the
.Lord Chancellor and others, that if the divorce
clause were thought to harsh, or if it were con-
ceived untenable, upon religious grounds, from
the conduct of the other party to the marriage
contract, some other less objectionable enactment
might be substituted—after various, deprecatory
hints of this kind, we say the divorce clause was
carried by the general enemies of the Bill, by-
the Queen's friends, and those convinced of her
innocence, with a view to the final frustration of
the. measure ; and what is most absurd is, that
nine Cabinet I,linisters, who had themselves
placed, the divorce_ clause in. the Bill, voted
against it, and were, with their friends, greatly
outnumbered-; thus, -to use a homely phrase,
"having their own measure ." forced down their
-throats," when the taste of it had' become
,grievously unpleasant. We are ourselves friends
to the Church of England—we are members of
it—and we do, therefore, most sincerely wish
that our Bishops had made a different figure. Good
God ! what a disposition there was in the House
to listen to them! and how it was repaid. The
emoluments of the Church (which we grudge not),
if they had been duly bestowed, must have pro-.
duced men of more abilities. It has always been
said that Ministers were afraid of Watson, on ac-
count of his talen'ts„ And. the. uncontrollable mjnd
which the consciousness of them -engendered.
11as that fear paralyzed every attempt to put a
man of even ordinary powers upon the Bench
from the first moment of Dr. Watson's consecra-
tion ? What have the present, men. read ? Where
even have they been ? Their virtue we do not
dispute ; and, upon their general inclination to
sustain the powers that be, we are not now com-
menting. But, to be useful allies, they should
possess some attainments of learning, some range
of intellect, some.expanse of ,genius. Sincerely
do we wish, merelrfor the permanence and re-
spectability of the establishment, that a Warbur-
ton, a Watson, a Sherlock,' or .a. Hoadley, bad.
been
.upon the Bench, even though thOse Prelates
had employed their .talents to the ruin of ,that
cause which we so sincerely advocate. If it were
to fall, we should wish it not to fall, like a hero
of the Old Testament, " by :the • hand -of a
woman," or by those of men weaker than women.

{Morning Post.]

TIIE QUEEN.—The Bill of Pains and Penalties
yesterday passed through the Committee. On a
division there appeared a majority- of 67 for_the
Divorce Clause, which it will be remembered
the Earl of Liverpool had said it was not his in-
tention .to. press, if the feeling of the House
should.be against it. From its being known that
Earl Grey.wished to retain the Divorce' Clause;
considering that by withdrawing from the sup-
port of the Bill those who did not approve of
that clause, lie might stand- some chance of de-
feating the measure altocrether,. the factious have
begun already to shout for an imaginary triumph.
The Bill has passed through the Committee as it
came into the, House, and this is a victory! Per-
haps the third reading will furnish thetu'with a
still more delightful treat, and complete their
felicity. On this we may possibly have-to con-
gratulate them before the. close of the present
week. For some time . it has been quite the
fashion to declaim against throwing out the Di-

verce Clause. 46 What," it has been—asked
over again, " will you say that her Majesty is
unworthy to be the Queen of England, btit
is still good enough to be the wife of the
King ?" and the individuals who favoured
such a proposition were honoured with the
usual tribute of abuse and ridicule. Those who
wish to judge of this great question impartially,
will do well to recall' what was the favourite topic
of reproach before that to which we have just
alluded was broached. The cry then was, that
the King wished to marry some young Princess,
and it was to enable him to do this; that -the Bill
was brought into Parliament to divorce him from
his Queen. For this purpose, and for this alone,
it was 'pretended that perjured witnesses had
been brought over to swear against the delicate
innocent creature now residing at Brandenburgh
House. At that time none of the rabble who
tarried up their Addresses thought of complain-
ing of the punishment that would be inflicted on
the King if lie were not divorced from tkte good
Queen Caroline ! 'But the moment the Earl of
Liverpool refUted the popular slander, that it
was for the personal gratification of the Monarch
that these proceedings were instituted, by offer-
ing to give up the Divorce Clause, from that ma-
meat the cry was raised, that of air things in the
world that clause ought to be retained. This is
very consistent—consistent with that mischievous,
calumniating-, and perverse spirit, which has been
all along manifested by those have come
before the public as friends and defenders of her
Majesty.

[Morning Chronicle.]
We are glad, that' by the carrying the Divorce
Clause this odious Bill remains in its original
form, having lost nothing which can in any way
diminish the odium which all classes of the com-
munity bear towards it. When we consider that
all those Peer 'who voted against the second
reading-retain their 'objections to the Bill, that
several Peers declared they could not agree to
the Divorce Clause, and particularly that some
of the Bishops declared, that no consideration
on earth would ever induce them to adopt such a
Clause, we entertain a confident hope that
the Bill will yet be thrown out. We know that
it is by no means unusual with the Members of
that exalted body to receive suddenly a new
light on any subject ; but we would fain hope
that nothing of the kind will happen on the
present occasion, and particularly that those
of the Fathers of the Church who objectel to
the Divorce Clause, will retain their objectio..--7
We have little doubt, from what we have heard,
that the facility with respect to the Divorce
Clause displayed by Ministers, had in view the
more effectually securing that object at last. We
know with what feverish anxiety they have al-
ways looked forward to a diminution in the
warmth of the zeal of the people in favour of her
Majesty; and we know that, though they have
hitherto been disappointed, they calculate on
wearying the people out at last. Upon this prin-
ciple it may have been deemed advisable to let
the Bill go iuto the Commons without the Divorce
Clause, in bopes that a more favourable conjunc-
tion would enable them to introduce it, in a late
stage of its progress through that House. We
trust that this Machiavelian policy has been de-
feated, and that the Country will speedily be re-
lieved for-ever from this worst of all curses.

[Morning Herald.]
The Proceedings in the House of Lords yes-
'te'rday were extremely curious. The Bill of
Pains and- Penalties has passed through the Com-
mittee, with an overwhelming majority upon one of
its main provisions—the divorce clause ; and upon
this result the opponents of the measure out of doors
are singing lopean. The solution of the difficulty is
understood to be this—Several Peers, spiritual
and temporal, who, voted for the second reading,
did so upon an understanding that the Divorce
Clause should be omitted in the Committee,
whilst another mass of the advocates of the Bill
are strenuous to. retain the whole.—The Opposi-
tion Lords, in order to procure the rejection of
the Bill on the third reading, voted for the divorce,
thus preserving the Bill in such a state, that
those who oppose. the divorce clause must vote
against the Bill in toto in the next stage ; and
thus, by a Parliamentary manauvre, would the
measure be got rid oraltogether. Whether any
counter-effort of Parliamentary Generalship will
be played off on the other side, does not yet ap-
pear. The Right 'Rev, Prelates in the House
were equally divided on this embarrassing point.

[British Press.]

The question for the House this day will be,
whether the Report of the Committee shall be
received ? Upon this question the House ought
to be nearly unanimous in rejecting the Report,
which would have the effect of throwing out
the Bill altogether. Those who voted yester-
day against the clause, ought to vote this day
also against it on the bringing up of the Re-
port ;. and those who opposed the second reading
of the Bill, ought also -to vote -against the
Report, to express their hostility to the
principle of the measure in general. Happy
would it be for the country if such an union were
to be/formed ; happy would it be for the King,
for the Royal Family in general, and not less
so for the character of the Lords themselves!
Should this union, however, not take place, and
the Bill unfortunately proceed to the third read-
ing, it is still our decided opinion that the disso-
lution of marriage ought of necessity to accom-
pany the measure of degradation, and share its
fate. This, we think, is due to the honour of the
King; it is also due to the safety of the Queen.
The measure must be viewed by Parliament in
its collective shape, and be entertained in discus-
sion with a direct reference to its several parts.
Degradation of the Queen, without dissolving her
Marriage, with the King, is an anomaly most in-
jurious to the feelings of the Sovereign and to the
character of the country. The Queen, however,
has a right to complain, that at an early part of
the proceedings she was led to entertain a belief
that the Divorce Clause would form no part of

the Bill ; for it not only gave on the second read-
ing an increase of numbers to the ranks of her
enemies, but prevented her Counsel on the trial
from addressing themselves to this part of the
Bill. We certainly should not countenance the
application to this case of the principle recog-
nised in ordinary cases of divorce, of admitting_
proof on the part of the defendant to shew that
the plaintiff was not rectos in curia, and in
consequence of the errors of his own life not en-
titled to the relief he prays. But undoubtedly,
if the question of divorce were agitated, it ought
to be permitted to the Queen to lay open to
Parliament the long course of sufferings, injuries,
and insults, to which she had been exposed in
this country, even from the hour of her marriage,
and which at length, in very bitterness of soul,
drove her to seek for refuge in foreign lands,
reduced her there to the necessity of forming her
household of individuals not entitled by their
personal respectability to so high a distinction,
and subjected her to mingle in scenes which her
enemies have with cruel ingenuity perverted
into pretences for accusation. The House pos-
sibly might in a measure fora divorce have suffer-
ed what is somewhat incorrectly called recrimi-
nation ; but from every attempt of this, nature
her Majesty was effectually debarred by the
pression which she and her Counsel were suffered
to receive at the very commencement of the pro-
ceedings:

FOR THE SUN.