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

elf he in honour bound. that if the general impression
were against the Divorce ('lto se, he wtssf'd not support it,
and though his h... 1 jotlement as to the Clause was,_ that it
remain, it was not his intention to press it on their
Lordships. Lle could not say, that after giving this point the
fullest consideration, he concurt ed in the- opinion that mar-
t iage was nether a religions vow than a religious coutract.
Jo his opinion, marriage was not only
a religious, but a civil
contract, and a religions vow also--(hear!)--In truth, it was
religioo, which, after adopting it both as a vow and acontract,
made it a civil cnnt tact in addition: but be !mist say, that it
the *lli voi te Clouse were omitted; it was quite impossible that
the Pill should be let stand with merely the clause of degra-
dation—them !;.—There most-be some further Clause devis-
ed to a concluding enactment. to accord with the rlatiSe
eldt.,:rAd.ti,M—O'Ctlr.!)—Ttw first.. enactment. did in effect
frothing without ,som- corollary. If the 111,601.4 y of their
1-ordshirs should lie of that the' Divot et. ('laro;.e ought
,to.rentain, 11,. n of course there was an end to the difficulty:
hot if, on thr cot,trarv, yielding to the religions scruples of
some, scroples, too, which were deserving (considering, the
parties from whom they come) the most serious
they strock ont the Divorce Clause, then it would become in
disprnsitile.that some other dome, having the satire effect,
shoold he substituted iii its place, so as to make the Bill in-
telligible Loth to Lawyers and .l ridges The House must,
therefore, in the end, es plain what it meant to do after re-
pealing, this Divorce tlanse—(hear !) —1 hey might, he
tht.ught, devise some explanatory- measiire, wonld
g vs: the religious part t,f the contract nntonchett
hot still would leave the parties in that complete state of se-
pat,' ion which their relative condition after this Bill tit ces-
sat ly dictated; in fact, to make that separation, which was
now in effect existing, to all inteins and purposes conelosive-
ly(hear!)—Atiother circtimstat:ce, which in this or-
. raligenient it was vet y material to consider,. was this. sup
pose the case of a holy who commenced a suit in the Ecclesi-
astical Court against a tun:band, from who-m she lived in a
state of separation, for the restitution of her conjugal rights,
and that Ow bostiand pleaded of the adtillery,
and proved it, in her would not the Court reject
her application? Might it not he prop. r, SO as to reconcile
all the distressini! differences in this ('louse, by looking at
it, as a case in which the patties had lived separate for several
years, and in which adoltery oo the-part if the wife had brill
proved, and as if the hoshand hid pleaded that adultery in
bar to the restitution I'.r conjugal nglits ? They would thus
leave the religious contract of mat:loge, but the parties
WWII(' be in the same sitnation as if there had been a divorce
a nansa et Moro. Whateret charge of inconsistency be might
be exposed to (and he chewed it to be the dirty of a public
man to-submit himself to all observations on his confine.), '
though in his judgment the Divorce Clause was not objec-
tionable, lie did nut think it possible, on account of the
pledge given by the Noble Earl t'Liverponl); for him in-
dividually, to give his vote for the Divorce Clause,, but he
hoped no other person would be influenced by his vote in
condemning it.
The Mat que4 of LAINSDOWN said, he felt it impossible,
though lie disapproved of the whole Bill, not to offer some
observations cm the question before the Conintittee, though
be begged their Lordships not to slippOse that he rose to otter
any ohservations on sthe divine law, the considerations of
which he was not indifferent to, but which had been discuss-
ed by other persons so much better qualified to do justice to
it than himself. But he felt it his duty, before the rejection
or the passing of this clause; So protest against the doctrine
stbich he had heard asserted it) the course of the discuvs.

that thtre might exist a woman the w►fe of the King and lint
the Queen Cmisoit of these realms. lie felt as the flight
ileverend Prelate who had spoken that morning, the (Nee.
tuns to the. admission of the clause before them, but he frit
still more the difficulty of admitting a character directly irre
concilable to the constitutiona person, being the wife of

the King, but fulfilling no one purpose, answering no one
• end which the country expected, and had a right to expect
front the wife of the Sovereign. , Their Lordships, after ad-
mitting the clause, reading it a st•cmid time with the Bill,
And then rejecting it in the Committee, would proclaim to
the world that the Queen had been an adulteress; but that,

entertaining that opinion, they thought it fit that she should
continue alewife of the King.=--(Hear, hear!)—Disguise it as
they would,ihis was the effect of their declaration. Was it
a tinatter of indifference to proclaim this When the whole
course of histeiry and the wholes tenor of the laws asserted the
principle, that the marriage of the King was contracted to
answer, not individual purposes, hilt great online ohjects,and
when Parliament had legislated with that view Admitting
that the Queen might be degraded, and yet remain the wife
of the King, they incapacitated her, and also the King -him-
self, from rendering those public_ services by means of mar-
riage, which Parliament always had considered that the mar-
riage was contracted to answer. He did not say that he ap-
proved of the clause in itself, because he did not approve of
the Bill at all ; but he besought them to look whether it was
not a necessary deduction from the other clauses. If they
left it out, they would only add im•re anomaly to all the other
anomalies of this wst,aordinary measure. They then would
bare a person against whom it was a!lcged, that when in the
situation of Princess of Wales, she had committed adultery;
who continued ['ripe, ss of Wales, for years after that adul-
tery was alleged to be committed ; .who, beemning the Queen,
and having committed I/0 adultery as Quern, was degraded .
by their enactment, on account of that previousalleged adut-
tery ; who ceased to he Queen, but yet continuetf to be the
wife of the King, and was recorded; though an adultress, as
a person who might succeed to the Throne of these realms.—
They would have a person who had filled oittk high situation,
that of Princess of Wales .and who was then promoted to
another situation still higher, in which she had committed no
crime, and who was degraded from the honour of that situa-
tion, but still remaining the wife of the King, and capable
of succeeding to anothyr, the highest of all situations, that of
Queen regnant of the realm. Neither would this he just to
the Queen. They would have stripped her of all the attri-
butes, but would leave her subject to all the disabilities aris-
ing out of her contract. Her Majesty would have a right to
complain that she was to remain subject to the authority
when she was deprived of the protection of a husband. This
divorce of course was only justifiable on the ground of adul-
tery, which he did not think was proved, but he should
not ha-Ye quitted his conscience if he had not declared his
conviction that this clause was an inherent and necessary
part of the' Bill, and that the Bill must he passed in
tufo, or that ore other anomaly must be added to this ano-
malous measure.

Lord KiNG said there was a strange confusion of opinion
in the House—there was a confusion of .opinion avuung -the
Ministers—a confusion of opinion among the Lawyers--and a
confusion of opinion among the Prelates.—(A Inugh.),-;
There were political scruples in the House, and religious
scruples ; for he was bound to suppose that only religious
scruples operated on the Right Itev. Bench. The House had
not derived, therefore, much information from the opinions
of th'e Fathers of the Church, among whom there was not that
unanimity so much to be desired in the Church of England.—
The Noble and Learned Lord who had waited for their opi-
nions, had not ;pissed much by his delay ; hut if he hail not
information, he had at least consolation, for he would find
that there wore doubts among Churchmen as well as among
Lawyers.—lA was anxioUs to see the enact-
ments of the Bill less absurd than the preamble was unjust,
for he considered there was an utter want of evidence, and
that the Noble Lords had been influenced by reports.. He
would confess that he for one had not been able, though he
endeavoured to direst his mind of them. He had heard, for
instance, in stipport—of th-e assertion, that the. Queen bad
been guilty of indecent fainilistities with Bart ',Monica) Bet-
gami"; that she had been guilty of familiarities of the same
nature with the Right Honourable the Earl of Liverpool, at
Blackheath-4A lativ,lo----videlicit, playing at hlindman's
bilit—(Great laughter)—and also with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The time when this happened he had not heard;
perhaps it was when lie was out of Office and trying to get in
again—(" No, I assure the Noble Lord," from Lord Liver-
pool.)—Perhaps, then it was just before the Regency—(.Ne-
ver, I assure the Noble Lord," from Lord Lircrpool.)—
(Mirch laughing, and cries of hear I)
Earl GRRY said, that if he had entertained any doubts on
this question, when he referred to the opinions which had.
been delivered by the Right Rev. Bishops, those doubts would
hare been in no degree relieved. Of the eight of those Rev.
Prelates by whom the House had been addressed, four had
given a decided opinion one way, and the other four had giver;
a decided opinion the other way. HOW the Noble and. Learn-
ell Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) had satisfied tiro
doubts which he yesterday stated to have existed in his mind,
he was at a loss to conceise. As for any information he had
received from that venerable Bench, he might have spared
them the unnecessary trouble of meeting that day. He, how-
ever, now rose merely for the purpose of stating his own dif-
ficulties. If he had voted for this Bill, he certainly should
have no doubt or hesitation whatever in voting fur the Di-
vorce Clause; for he must repeat that it did not seem to him
possible, with any thing like a consistent regard for the ho-
nour of the Crown,and lie had not yet heard any thing which
induced him to think that it might not he compatible with
the strictest observance of religious duties; that the Queen,
who had been degraded by Act of Parliament for such of-
fentes as had been imputed to her, should still remain the
wife of the Kitsg—(Hear, hear 1)"But he felt a difficulty in
voting for this Clause when he thought that the proof which
Was necessary to support_ any part of the Bill had failed.—
But'he reconciled himself to the voting for it, in the hope
that he might, by the passing of this Clause, put-the House