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

in a situation in which they woul4l he trove to do
great public service—to reject the Bill on the third reading.
—(Hear !)
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said, he remained of the
opinion which he had first expressed in favour of the clause,
and he would remind the House of the situatlnn in which
they were to he placed. They had been for 50 days consider-
ing a Bill which had been brought in by the Ministers, as
they were hound to suppose, after due consideration. This
Bill contained only one enacting .paragraph, which Was di-
vided into two propositions or clauses. The Ministers now
Ailed on them to abandon one of t hose clauses. But this seas
not all. Would they then pasi the remaining clause asikt.
Mood ? No. They had told the House that the Biljfimlll-
- in that-rase he carried, but that it must be new modelled.
that after 50 days' consideration they coold not pass the
exkting, or any low of it, hot some other Bill, of the exact
saturi• of which they bad not yet receirLd the least hint.—
Flury Were to onsit one half of the Bill, and they were told
that the remainder was not to stand: They should hare Sousse
notion at least of what sort of Bill they were to have instead
of that which was before

Lord ELLENBOROUtiti -said, lit did not think any re'

gibes scruples could rxist AS to the etattse, After the opinion,
dehVt:feti i)y the Right Rererrild Prelates' or that any legal
.061uction could tewain, atter the oilinion of the Noble Lord
who ns;tnlls sat on the Woolkaeli. that wonhl lie the effect
of this BM withunt the Clause of tlieorcc f it veonlit he a
deelarettion that the Queen is too bad for the Stat.., but not

too brtd fur the King. If they. passed such Bill, they would
pohlish. by the authority of the house of Lords, a seditious
lihyl on the King.—(Hear, hear !)
Lord SOMERS said, that if -any thinx, could induce hint to
rote ag,,iUstthe Divorce Clause it would be the avowal of the

object of a Noble Earl (Earl Grey) in coming to a vote in its
favour, viz, the making it the means of throwing out the Bill.
He lamented that the only nicefy of feeling respecting the
13i11 was to he 'found on that (the (Tpposition) side of the
Honsu—(llear,,hear !)—Though•be should be sorry by voting
for the Klause to •uado what the House had been so long
doing, fie could not reconcile it to himself to say, that the
;Queen, being deprived of all her rights and dignity, should
remain fastened, as it were like a mill otine, room! the neck
of her husband.
The Earl of 'LIMERICK said, he had voted, on a dear con-
viction of the guilt of the Queen, tot the sucinol reading of
the Bill; but it this Clause was omitted, the Bill would4r6i*
grade, not only the Queen, hut the King, and, 'what:Was‘siill
more. the nation, by leaving as the wife of the possessor- of
the Throne a woman whom they had declated to be guilty of
adultery.
The Earl of ESSEX spoi:e to the fo:lowing efrect—Agree-
ing with the Noble Earl (Grey) in all that he had said, .1 thiok
I can reconcile to myself the inconsistency of voting for the'
Divorce Clause, even aftet the perfect conviction that not one
atom of the Preamble of the Bill has been proved. I have

regretted munch that - her Nlajesty's conduct snbsulpient to
1817_ has not been investigated.o Om this OtCaSioll, for it was
due to her Majesty to do so. But the omission proceeded
only, I suppose, from the satisfaction of her persecutors, that
they haul sufficient of that sort of evidence upon which they
meant to coodeato her. I never had a doubt, that at no dis-
lig period this foul Conspiracy would conic to light, and
that the plots of the Ministers, the Gu i'mnis,• and the Omp-
tedas would he developed. With respect to that period of the
Queen's absence front this count ry,which has not been referred
to in the investigation before your Lordships, I feel it my duty
to state, in-justice to this Illustrious Princess, thatin the year
1819 1 had the hotuo,r of waiting upon her at Lyons, where
there existed no mvstery whatever : and I witnessed the conduct
of Bcrgami towards her Royal Highness to be of the most re-
spectful description possible. Under these circumstances I
cannot hut wish that this Bill may be setutovith all its imper-
fections on its head, to meet the motion for the third reading.
Th e Noble Earl coneluded, as we understood him, with oh-
-serving, t4uat he thought this - measure emanated rather from
the Ministry of Hanover than of England.
Lord ANSON said, that he shookd vote for the Divorce
Clause upon the same ground as that stated by his Noble
Friend on the door Tad Gre.s), namely, in the hope tat its
adoption would lead to the rejection
T of the Bill alt titer.
li
For this ejection he was naturally anxious, as a easure
more repugnant to the principles of justice, or more revolt-
ing to the.judgment and feelings of the people, was never, he
believed, even in the worst times of our history, obtruded up-
on the consideration of Parliament. But it was his con-
scientious conviction that the whole of this proceeding had
originated in a base conspiracy to ruin the Queen, of whose
innueence tie was thoroughly convinced.—Such, indeed, was
the universal impression of the public, who had therefore al-
ready derided against this measure.
The Earl of TLIANET declared his tntire, unqnslified con-
viction of the innorence of the. Queen, in the hope of saving
win.mn horn the find confederacy phich sought her destruc-
t ions he should vote toc the Duvurce Clause.

The Earl of CARNA,EVON animadverted upon the re•
marks which had been made on the other side, with respect
to what was called "the united phalanx of (apposition;" ob-
serving, that if that phalanx had nut hren divided, the advo-
cates for the Bill before the House would have experienced
much more-embarrasiment in its progress. It was not im-
probable, indeed, that if it were not for the secession of the
Noble Lord on the cross Bench (Lauderdale), who had given
the aid of his powerful eloquence ro the oilier side, this Bill
would not have arrived at its nresent stage. It was not, how-
ever, from any consideration fur the united phalanx, as it was
termed, but from a solicitude for the United Kingdom, that
he felt it his duty to deprecate the measure The Noble Lord
at the head of the 1 reasury, who was so anxious for the
disgrace of the. Queen, was still adverse to the Divorce,
desiring only a separation. So that, according to this
doctrine, whether the Queen continued to live in England
or not, she, while degraded front her rank and title, was still
to remain the wife of the King.-- Nay more, :while the
wife of the King, if she engaged in the most adulterous and
legrading intercourse, she could not be punished, unless Mi-
listers could contrive to carry another 13111 of Pains and Pe-
Ries against her. Thus, although Ministers pronounce,
d would persuade Parliament to pronounce, the
teen one of the most degraded wretches of womankind; •
degraded, indeed, that she must he deemed unworthy of
ming the wife of any roan, those very Ministers Would have
t understood that it was quite fitting the King should be
bnrthened with her, Such was the liberal judgment of those
Ministers who called themselves the King's friends; he'would
not imitate-the example of such Dien, -hut for the sake of the
Throne of England, he would oppose theMinisters' endeavour
to omit the clause of divorce.

3111
Qii
so

Lord HOLLAND observed, that among what the Noble
Lord on the' other side called " united phalanx," there had
been a division in this ease, as well as among the Bishops,
the Ministers, and the Lawyers. He believed that many of
the Lawyers would agree with hint in dissenting from the
opinion of the Learned Lord (Redesdale) as to the effect of
the law, if a Clause of Separation were substituted for that
of Divorce; for in case of separation, neither the Queen, nor
any paramour whom she might select, would he snhjeet to the
penalties of treason for the commission of adultery, although
she would still remain the wife of the King. But if the House
decided that the Queen should be disgraced, upon what
ground could they decide that she ought not to he divorced?
He had no hesitation in saying, that he would vote fur the
Divorce, because the Bill of Degradation should not be al-
lowed to pass without it; but he would vote for the Divorce
with the intention of coding against all parts of the Bill upon
the proposition for the third reading.
The Marquess of BUCKINGHAM said, he felt it neces-
sary to make a few observations upon this important ques-
tion, without at all adverting to the ultimate vote opon the
Bill. The ooly question which then appeared to him to en-
gage the attention of their Lordships, was, whether are clause '
of divorce shotild be rejected or retained ? In considering
this question, he had naturally looked with the most anxious
attention for the opiniou or tke Bench of Bishops, and from
these 'doh ;Authorities he collected, that by the law of
God there was no impediment to divorce in case of
adnitery. From the Opinion of a Learned Lord who op-
posed the divorce, he learned, that in case of separation
the Queen would retain all her religious rights as a wife,
being only deprived of her civil privileges. Now, consi-
dering the character of this opinion, and as lie believed
with the Reverend Bench, that there was, by divine law,
no impediment to divorce in case of adultery, he felt himself
called upon to vote for a divorce in this case, as he believed
the Queen guilty of adultery. The Noble Lord at the head of
the Treasury had stated, that if in ease of separation, the
wife should commit adultery, divorce would not follow. But
•this opinion, he maintained, was as contrary to practice as
to principle; it was contrary to principle, because it held out
to any woman separated from her , husband, that no Di-
vorce could follow from her conduct, bon ever infamous—
that indeed she might commit or engage in adulterotts in-
tercourse with impunity. Then as to practice, a case had
not long since occurred, in which, although the- parties had
been separated by articles, it Divorce was granted in con-
sequence of the adultery of the wife. Upon these gronnds
he could not concur with the Noble Lord at pile head of the
Treasury, that if adultery should be committed after separa-
tion a Divorce would not follow; and still less could he con-
cur with that Noble Lord, that a woman deemed unfit to re-
tain the situation of Queen, in consequence of her adultery,
should yet be deemed fit to retain the situation of wife to the
King• But he liad another and a strong objection to the Noble
Lord's proposition; for if a divorce should not take place, and
the Queen should bring forth a son, that child would not for-