The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

case, of . Wright, Duncan, and Bruton, in 1700.
He shewed that a Bill of Pains and Penalties had
passed the House of Commons almost by accla-
mation, but when: it came to the House of Lords
the numbers ere 'equal. The Duke of Leeds
ha petted just Wen to afriveiand his vote given,
ag t the Bill decider its lath. The parties?,
were terviiirdS'• pr9secu as ikehppearekte
hin(on the Merits of tires; appeseld
that their Lordships had been within one vote of
carrying a Bill of Pains and Penalties against
persons who on being prosecuted were found not
guilty of the crimes imputed to them. He then
reminded them of the case of a Noble Bari
against whoM they .had refused to pass a Bill of
Pains and Penalties, though a Bill of Attainder
had subsequently been carried, by which his. life
was sacrificed. The conduct pursued in these
cases sheered that views of all descriptions had
decided the fate of the measures alluded to. He
next adverted to the case of Bishop Atterbury,
described the circumstances connected with it,
and remarked that till he read that case on the
Journals of the House, he had not supposed that
injustice could have been carried so far. .The
proceedings he alluded to proved that the ques-
tion which had been entertained was not .whether,
the party accused was guilty or not guilty, but
whether the individual accused was to be got rid
of or not. State necessity might sometimes jus-
tify recourse being had to Bills of Pains and Pe-
nalties, but the guiding precedents were such as
he had described them to be, and these it did,
not appear to him were very proper td be fol-
lowed in a case like the present, where the.
most solemn inquiry had been recommended, and
where the object in view was state.d to be sub-
stantial justice. Supposing State necessity to be
urged as the plea for passing this Bill, he would
ask if quite as much danger to the State might not
he anticipated from carrying this Bill .as from
dropping it ? When he spoke of the danger to
the State which might be apprehended from the,
passing of this Bill, he had no view to any thing-
that might take place out of doors. He knew
that whatever might be apprehended, their Lord,
ships would do their duty. Fiat Justitia runt
(Attain, must prevail. But the danger he alluded
to was that to which the English monarchy would
be exposed, if the measures now contemplated
were carried. He would suppose the Divorce to
be effected, and the King natrried again, and a
child to be the offspring of that marriage.. In that
case he• would ask who would say that the lega-
lity of this divorce would never be called in
question ? Would there be no doubt whether or
not that child ought to succeed to the throne ? 'He
knew that as a lawyer, he could not.argue figs.
He knew that acts of Parliament were legally
binding, but he spoke with a reference to public
feeling, which could not always be restrained by
such measures, and- which would sometimes in-
duce Parliament to revoke their decisions. This
had been seen in the case of Henry IV., who had
been recognized as the lawful King of England
while Richard 11. was living. In the wars be-
tween the Ilouses of York and Lancaster, Henry
VI. had been recognized as King : and in the
very same year Edward IVth had also been re-
cognized by Parliament as the' Sovereign of these
realms. Nine years afterwards Henry VI. was
recalled, and then he was declared to be 'E. the
lawfnl and undoubted Sovereign." He next
noticed the proceedings which took. place in the
time of Henry VIII. In 1534, the Princess
Mary was excluded from the succession to. the
Throne. He, however, shewed that Parliament
changed its_ views as the King changed his
wishes, and the issues of both the marriages
which had been excluded from the succession
were afterwards declared eligible to succeed,
and actually did succeed to the, Throne. Having
made some further remarks on the conduct Of
Henry with respect to his,diverces and his parlia-
ments, which he had been described by the His-
torian " to call together, because he could not
discover any means so efficacious for satiating
his vengeance on those he considered to be cri-
minals, as Parliaments, 'the usual instruments of
his tyranny," he contended, from the cases
to which he had referred, that Acts of Parlia-
ment were not always snfficient to restrain the
force of public opinion. But it might' be argued,
that there was no. danger of a disputed sue-.
cession. He did not know how to answer this,
but. by reminding the House of a resolution
which' had been brought before the House of
Commons in 1809. This was a subject to which
it was painful to 'revert, but it was become
necessary, with a view to practical consequences.
If her Majesty were degraded 'lbr scandalous,
vicious, and immoral condtict, as charged in the
present Bill, when another party should put in
his claim to the crown,.might he not, by possibi-
lity, be told that his knell was rung on account
of similar conduct that might be charged. Sup-
posing this to. be got over in some ,way or other,
might-not some of the Royal. Dukes, who would
stand next to the Crown, be accused of immoral
avid licentious conduct within the last six years,
and thus exposed to degradation as well as her
This was not in principle a
single present
c a
slVe a jesty.
If the Queen were degraded, and
forced to go forth an outcast on the world, or to
put up with, a more contemptible residence at
boue it was not certain that her's would be the
only case
of the kind. If the arguments now
used were good against her, why not be good
against others ? if that which was charged
against her were a crime in the 'Queen Consort,
he wished to knevi if it would be less a crime in
the Queen Iteguant. Her 'present Majesty was
not remote from the Throne in point of blood,
nor_ very far removed from it in poiut, of probabi-
lity. The -number of Lives that at present inter-
vened between her_ and the Throne, were exactly
the same as had intervened between King William
and George the First. What was to be done in
the event of her being likely to succeed to the
Throne in her Own right ? Were new.proCeediugs
to.,be,institutect? If. so, and the present Bill was
:pasqed," k'feated 'the. country thust. look forward,-
net to a regulai!stitcasitoii. to the -Crown, .but tp
a regular succession of, green 'bigS".'ll4. how-
ever; was of opinion that the country had already