The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-08 00:00:00

tirOrdi

•orris•

the
anird
lA,ndt
,d se"
F.3rl,

1 the

F Dir
votl4l
e
ed t't
d

Ell

,( I)t'
114" J
toittAr
t ite

• _last,
11:e
xilig'
the
f t
1011.
:311v0

ti!g.

11'
satni•

,t lo of
i t►,e

bs,:f"

vcr/
ngli4
(1;
014
facia'
nto-

catre

or

°wit-
sct
rive

e uli-

)101}1

111341
it ilia

d (11°
ht
part
• ct-'

vorto

Glrrk

read!
as bet
e t Do.
S

the"
eani-
rceif
36111'

11 be
d 3 a"

Ithg
ether
re"
ilt

col?'
onsr'
ce "1
rd to
heel
her-

0,
csep

c, tilts
,s re-
, Ott

t had

otiCe
It UP•
hog,
f ale
foilsO

cde3

f no

Nisi 4,
....Ni•,.111 ekpedieney that could justify any thing of th;ft arirt- .
f 4 r
~; ir ige was not a civil contract, but a sacred
.ordinance
.fused Von, end he looked to the word of God as his guide in .
sc'te fng'alt °Pinion Upon this case. He could net therefore
t„,
wur the Divorce. And yet, if 'the House were to pass the
..ill',1).
ittteldmourt tahe Divorc, he mostrosspectacle would be
King having for his wifeu s a degraded woman :
threr..e. was no possibility of avoiding this extremity without
hea,rug out the Bill altogether—(loud cries of hear, hear,
a„.,__ )---He. felt no hesitation in yesterday giving his vote
his the Bill ; but he must declare, if called upon to give
Z°,P',ion in his judicial situation, that he.mnst be under
Itsevalnful necessity of saying guilty to the charges. It had
relitsaid, that regard for public morals, and the interests of
Wogi'dgnti' required. that the Bill should pass. Much more
been It Public murals, ancLthe interests of religion hare
liesi: sreeds. if the Bill had never been spokep of—(bear,
.gof i' ‘lear I)—Those nauseous publications would not have
ime...nto private society. If would be gratifying to all good
.
~,oury_,o hear that the riseaS'ore was totally alindoned;'but it ,
tea " be gratifying to the enemies of order to hear that it
~:,Persevered in.' He concluded, by praying to God that he
Ih,, lit not have ta deprecate the continuance of the Bill fur
Jest of his life.
etiiitt'e Ilishop of CHESTER said he believed the Queen to he
eptoY: but he had voted for the second reading of the Bill,
laid a flit understanding that the Divoree Clause was to he
as heside• He should vote against that Clause, as he judged
.
ti.rihear‘oreciiali,„i.siish
iir
ofbecj.uNdFrei.d,:ithußy said, that if the qnes-
tist,„!sss whether divorces res. vineulo matrinsonii were e;",,,,, with the word of God? he felt bound to answer, that
te's'tie ere• He must tell their Lord-hips, that they were.di-
',elf' Tl'l expressly declared to be lawful. he onrSaviitur him-
inSti„eY were certainly not authorised by the Cansuris,aud
law of ',`,'"us of the Established Church, norby the COII.IIITOTI
:In soc,",e land. But why so ? Marriage lies at the foundation of
It hadfety, arid forms one (Jibe first principles of social order.
iu tt (peen the object of all States to protect it by every means
statipir power front dissolution: Divorces had, notwith-
N.,,lng, ()centred, both before and since the.-Reforination.
sser,rrre, notwithstanding, consonant both with the Mosaic
list : I,l' the' Christian' dispensation. Our Saviour had said,
'atilt,4 "e Who putt etleawav,his wife for any. ether cause than
'issu:Ys taaseth her to commit adultery.' Did not this oh
tledeVnfer that .diyorces were allowable ? His Grace con-
'll'Abls,:Y s"Ying, that he considered the charge of adultery
'4' le led against her ;Majesty, Rad, under that conviction,
firms ns, subjection of any description, least of all of a reli-
s„,,,' ueture, to the Bill Proceeding in the form in which it
sties I
Ti , „..' •
'ft' it/11'14T of WORCESTER admitted, that the question
fag le_-,vorce was not Wit hoot'
some difficulty ; but, consider-
lb, 11" w much the moials of the country were concerned in.
to ils:lt. of this proceeding, he Telt hound to give his support
korke."'il• [We understood this to be the purport of his
el the iiirs observations,.but he spoke iii a tone so inaudible
The ‘.r, that we cannot
:vouch for its accuracy..3l. •
jut
'Leto 11'sitep of LANDAFF thought the sbser ce
tiei, ' lie retained He did. not see -any force in the 05...1, unlade to it On a religious ground; for he-knew.of nothing
ss!,o;e (liristian religion against a dissolution of marriage for,
I‘l, era*, ' • -
Lotht 'shop ,
of LONDON agreed with his Right-Reverend.
,'elliZr (the Archbishop of Canterbury), that divorces were
Ili ,-''ed by the words of onr Savioar. As to any objection
rtedut" bivorce'Clanse of the Bill, founded on th. e. supposed
;'it. c.tt • of the complaining party, he thought it inapplicas
'Nst.,;: -great constitutions:l principle was involved in the
'IR ~ '"ase.-e-The King '"Teu/s/ de no wrung;" he could
t,i,,,,iebait a folly, far less a crime; and, thelefore,.recrinsi-
Th was Out of the question.-.-(Hea'r, hear !)
''';', s'ieEarl of LAUDERDALE coeld not refrain from oh-
-14 1 'ii With all due respect for the Right lime. Prelate,
.that '
Ile fir,o,uuds on which be had founded his vote for omitting '
'`" j'elee Clause had been much mis-stated. Did he (Lord
vii'diiia"it that -the King should 1w degraded :". No; those
Itiel''Schte
tutdgradeehimwho said, thatto.omit.' that tt:)ause
At. (44 e deny him all relief. The montage contract) gave
li'ivie, eeu certain public rights and privileges; tint those
,(1,4411.es were connected with concomitant duties. In these
4'er.Ceen proved that her Majesty had failed. • He was, •
',sew tes willing to consent to that. part of the Bill which
~es I sdePrive her of those •pubiie rights and privileges. But
i!lik; nu that account to say, that there should be two kinds
S's • t."-tunc for the King and the Other for his • subjects?—
r the-le marriage law of the country should remain the same
;14'1 sj9ug as for a subject. The Right Reverend Prelate
'ry.w.. that the King could do no Wrong. But adul-
-14.11 is not a crime in this country, according. to the law
ii-4er, al',l;ali'i• That _late only required . that the man. seek-
'‘';lll ,:s','''rce should not himself have been accessary to• the
rsete„.•" In the Ecclesiastical Law he • understood that
't 1,:,,1Y was described as a peccatum, and not a crime; and
died uo difficult in saying that the same law shoulel he ap-
kaa n'' the Sovereign as to the subject. Tlieir Lordships
ilj4.4ait-7, Pass the Divorce Clause, were such a Bill as the
I,llere
vu.efore them in a private case, and they coald not pass
t'ess !thottl. the ordinary proceedings in all divorce: cases.
-Iflit a' Indeed they meant to say, that one of thes less ties
tail pool as as he i
pleased,and yet be entitled to the relief which
eiNest(it''Y granted• they -went into proof that he was en- ,
t'il,"lll,l:reitc• Tltislt‘e‘le'vetisisielered would belllljllSt ill the Qfwen,
t.se,el fore he could not agree to it. The Noble
.Lei d con- '
Olesii Y expressing his.astonishment at the opinion of ,
v wt.Prelaie, who thought this divorce sanction.ed,by ,
vii to p„It; ' He could not give his assent to that doctrine. .
tr-heu th'e4l" DARNLEY said, that his mind was not cluing-
e'pei
the
tlslibject, in consequence of what he had
Scrip
eard
tc's t - Ise nick of Bishops, thatthere was nothing in the Scrip-
.e peve_. ,• . ,
~ •
ei . eet . us a me ince lit this case. He was of oinion that
44tiss„' ' He that putteth away his wifeLualess it be for for.
'hill,. he'reinseth her to commit adultery,. was
;4 , ei aud a sufficient ground for resisting:the
.divorce.
c• it Mee news had been put away. Was it for fornication, and
, use h not, did not her husband, agreeably to t he .Scripture.s,
hr(slighe,tir t° commit adultery ? Could their Lurdshipstimen,cn
tl 'sat s Point of view, grant the relief now asked ? Butt he
tt,s4se tit
„,ey could neither pass the Bill with nor without the
te.l',li‘tvit.ii()':;'. with it, as it was contrary to the.Go.spteuel;Kaitrtigd
l it, as they could not degrade the wife ot I
tti.NheyinftZei it divorce, UfIICSS they meant to render thatt sita%
te.) wee Ous• Queen she must remain, and surrouni.ei
, 4ishie. e• with difficulties, the sooner they gut rid .of this de-
'l.'he bliteasure the better.
eiti4de $:.ll.°P of LONDON explainedahe text quoted by the
cs,the ` The putting away had no reference to desertion
Partthercliegq the husband ; it meant a written divorce, ac-
-4 ligh ti
,site Mosaic law; and the purport waS clearly, that
li•n'eral was a political separation, it was not sufhcient in
''4al wi,l:Cent to admit of the woman's taking a second hus-
ni,flie lauolut committing adultery.
Ate his ; ,of DONOUGHMORE expressed some surprise
rio-en. satt"le Friend (the Earl of Lauderdale) had
,not
re,f cea fled with the opinions which had been, pro-
Ili e Bei„n,P9n the question of divorce by the Reve-
. 4p,,,. '4gar,V of Bishops. He ridiculed the gravity of
tust''"ikiilitt -ent cf his Noble Friend respecting , the • re;
ki the
etY for_ debt. to which he had ailuded. . I his was
l'it't had :e, of an individual seeking for relief. The
t 'e Stat -si'ed for merelief except as head of the State.—
littt'iefs neet'ttiheir.Lordships, and the Ministers. bad solicited
ssiie feelin,,ie,Kuig. His Lordship was of opinion that too
tu -sage theet "ad been manifested for the Illustrious Per-
et'old h„--ghout these proceedings. If the Queen was fit
, ti,eteedin— s'thation, after all that had been proved, their
ta,),.; th!,,,nnst go for nothin,. They had only wasted fifty
Ici'''ons 4e-t-• valeable time to n''o purpose. He thought those
l'Orrs liameed• wrougly who bad presumed to introduce the
ii-egrade,
:Hi this proceeding.. He did not wish royalty to
thee ateasu° there was too much of that feeling out of
.doors.
tits, State • re had been introduced for the relief of
liii" the rend all he asked, and that was not much, was
tuel:lY to nedY should he given in the manner least
et '4 ‘,„.Prejuidice its character. The House had declared
thtted he"e`es that it conceived the Queen to have ren-
°Wl ewePif unfit for the rank of Queen Consort ;• and
heed it tot.t to themselves, they owed it to the women, they
eiTl:outirlue(dhe character of the country, that she should. not
liSl (4
the in the character of the wife of the King-- Every
ei4i. }seen
..riajetrity must have been of opinion that adultery
Lett " their ell; and several of the minority had also de-
Pet:rahi, pe°nYictiott of flue same. Amongst those was the
hart 't to sli relate, the Archbishop of York, whir, thongh op-
the, expreses
.niaielity on the question of the second yearling,
a..ight it " ins opinion that the Queen was guilty, yet
til.°The i was not justifiable that she should he divorced.
he lit trig terraption having been given to the Noble Lord
44aid, ;;Peeeb by calls of "Oder" arid " Questions"
these who those interruptions were disgraceful only. to
wells' with
sus.ed them, and for his own part he treated
Oree"ht re("ereign contempt.) This Lady, shento tied gtintr the station of Queen Consort ; had been
Ive 4 her sq.! el' adultery, and to let her re-main Queen,
114 ° be t. (inter to his Majesty, to give him no relief,
euttifselin_s runanifest a great disregard, he would not say to
but,
.ority6l,_!lli Majesty, because they had neen told from
sit
,4i slit,ir. °I. his 'Majesty had no feeling on the subject',hertu's aia;.°‘vit consistency. . With respect to the feelings
ps,,,Usta ar:,st3's he must say, that he believed there never
1,4 i estye tips blic' pri eedii of such moment, of such im-
tiet'l,4-4erias,",,_s in which all7person so directly interested
Lt :',4,14‘v,4 t.."lttle forward arpkrt. He did not, if he might
'at reoit': use the exp,ecsion, he did not care what might
gs of that Illustrious, Person-----be did not view

this measure with and relation to thost feelings. •God farhia
that either lie, or the Ministers, or that douse, should ever
lend themselves to any such feelings; but as a State
measure, he thought the blouse should pass the whole Bill. '
In giving this opinion he acted not according to the feelings
of the King, but according to his own. It was as a State mea-
sure that he had voted for the fill, and he thought it ought
to be passed altogether; for in what situation would they
stand, if, after agreeing that the preamble hail been proved,
they should refuse to pass the Divorce Clause ?
The Bishop of CHESTER said, that the Noble Lord who
spoke last having stated that the whole of the Bishops, except
the venerable Prelate (the Archbishop of York) who had so
ably expounded the ecclesiastical law of marriage, agreed in
the propriety of the divorce clause, be felt himself called upon
to declare, that by no consideration whatever could he, con-
-sistently with the dictates of hit conscience, be. iuduced to
vote for this Bill with the divorce clause.

The Earl of HARROWBY, after what had passed in the
House the other day, begged permission to offer a very few ob-
servations. lie was of opinion, that the teje'ction of the
clause would not heattended with the ill effects anticipated
by the Noble Earl, and that was one of his grounds for con-
senting to omit it. He had originally t fraught that its intro-
duction might lead to giving the Bill a different aspect from
its real one, and cause it to be misrepresented as a Measure.
of private relief, instead of a State measure, which it was.—
It was for this reason that he wished the Bill to be con-
structed without this clause, and he was now strengthened
in his view of the question by the great diversity of jtsdg-
ment which prevailed upon it in every quarter. He sug-
gested that instead of a divorce a vimotto matrintonii, ,
their Lordships might substiture a separation limited in some
respects, and !note suited to the particular case before them. •
For they all knew by a letter that had been produced, that a
complete separatissu between the parties. had taken place 9.4
years ago. This had. since been. recognized by an Act of Par-
liament; and as no individual under similar circumstances
could obtain a divorce at that Bar, he was clearly of opinion
that a.departure from the Scriptural doctrine arid pi active of
the Country ought nut to take place in the present instance.
There might he overwhelming grounds of State policy for
such a step, but here he did not see them, arid' therefore in
this particular case he would not do that which he would re-
fuse to do in every other. For these reasons he was hostile
to the clause remaining part of the Bill.
Earl FrrzwlLLl AN! spoke in so tow atone that the only
argument we could gather in his speech was that it would be
inexpedient, and was unnecessary to separate man and wile
in is case allele neither of them called for it.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL recalled to their Lordships' at-
tention the state-merits of his•opinion upon this branch (tithe
question which he had made nt former periods. On the 19th
of August, when urging them to proceed•to the-Bill on the
• grounds of public justice, he had distinctly declared that it
. was a misrepresentation to describe it as a measure of per-
!sonal relief. So far from that being consistent with troth,
he had avowed that lie' was prepared; in the event of an
opinion being largely expressed to that effect, to say that
it ought not to 'stand, and that he seas prepared to' give it'
up altogether. He bad delivered the same sentiments at a
subsequent'period, and' they' remained unaltered. But his
opinion was not. to bias the judgment of any.NOble Lord in.
this or in any other part of the case. On the contrary, he
had distinctly, avoided all privatecommunications'whatever on
the subject.—(Hear, hear!)—He had resisted personal inter-.
course on the question. From a' sense of his public duty
lie had come down to their Lordships' House to discharge his
functions publicly.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—acrd' no private in-
fluence or intercourse of any, kind had he' ever permitted to
warp any opinion even of those nearest to him.—(Shouts of
hear.)—From the first' and now, he sincerely wished their
judgment to be founded on their honest conscientious opinitinss
and no Noble Lord in 'that House was ever influenced
by him—(Hear, hear!)—The Noble Earl then turned to the
particular point under consideration. He had never looked
at this •Bill as whin of-divorce. It was a public measure, and
not sine of private relief. Even supposing•thrt stresig case of
a young King and Queen, with the succession to the throne•
imp-heated in such a proceeding, still he felt that it niust'he a
public:measure. Noble Lords-argued as if it'were impossible-
to degrade the Queen without following that degradation by
a divorce, unless they meant to throw odium-upon the King.
But -lie did not think them borne out in this conclusion. He
could, on the other hand, readily suppose many• cases' in
which the reverse was the natural consequence. He could.
suppose, for example, that a Queen of England Was guilty
of felony'---a crime that-would be sufficient - to operate her
devastation and it separation from her husband: But felony
on the part of one (tithe parties was no sufficient ground for a
divorce, which was granted for the crime of 'adultery alone.—
Every Christian • wOuld, perhaps; agrees that a•• divorce
founded upon a dissolution of the marriage contract could
not be• had for any 'utlier eritue than that of • adultery ; yet
was possible lin* a Mall. to sayi the Queen might not
commit other crimes so oetrasseous as to require degra-
dation ? If divorce was allowed' by tire law. of God, surely
the ..consequence of degradation, as applied to divorce, was
correct punishment. The Noble Earl said he was not pre-
sumptuans enough to give silty opinion on the religious part
of the question. If he were to give any opinion of that des-
cription, it would be the opinion' of the Right Rev. Nletropo-
litan of this Metropolis, namely, that divorce was allowa-
hie by the laws of God and the Church for adultery, and
that recrimination was. not a part of the law of God, but an
institution imposed by men, as springing out of the law and'
right in justice, to• prevent the party coming into Court
without s fair appeal. He knew that a large body of the
members of the Established 'Church entertained doubti on
this question: His Lordship did • not say he agreed • iu
those doubts,,but Ire could not exclude' (hens .from observa-
tion. It certainly was not on the law of God, that a party
could recriminate, and 'with 'respect to the Sovereign, they
could not permit recrimination consistent with his era-
racter of King, They could not , make the conduct of the
Sovereign amenable to the ordinary Tribunals. Under all
the considerations, was there a person who could say, that •
in a case of indecency and indecorum, the King of this' court-
try could have no divorce? There was :mother misun-
derstanding on the subject. Innumcrable calumnies had
been circulated against his Majesty by persons who knew not
the circumstances connected with both sides of the question.
The calumniators considered themselves secure in their as-
sertions, because it was not easy to answer calumnies spring-
tug from circumstances which occurred a long time back, mid '
capon which it washard for any individual to form a judgment.
• They heard the complaints" on one side, and-mit the complaint'
on the other. He did not state this to bear hard our her Ma-
jesty, but his Lordship would again say, that unless the indi-
' viduals were acquainted with all the circumstances of which
they were ignorant, they were not justified in their
charges of criminality. All the circumstances were not
known, but the House knew than,--a separation had exist-
ed between the King Ford Queen for the space of twenty-s
four years, which was sanctioned by his late Majesty, and con-
firmed by Act of PaHiarnent. They knew there had been
something extraordinary in the separation, and he might.
ask their Lordships whether, under the circurnstances•of se-
paration for so* many years, it was a case for them to go to the
extent of dissolving the marriage, leaving the parties .at
liberty to marry again? He did not sue that question in the
point others did, but he could not avoid giving the argument
against dissolution of marriage all the weight it deserved.'
Independent of many !considerations connected with the ex-
pediency of a dissoltniOn of marriage, a strong religious feel-
ing Oil the subject appeared-to pervade .a great part of" the. com-
munity, and•there was no doubt it was better to leave the
question.untouched. If that question was to heconte the sub-
ject-of debate, his-Lordship-, speaking fur himself, rather
wished the enactment respecting divorce to be put out -olthe
Bill. He should then introduce a clause; authorizing and
confirming the separation. Such a clause would be a distinct
feature of tire- BillLdist Met. from the clause of divorce-silis-
inlet in its operation and effect, and on thataccount it would
become the subject of their Lordships' consideration. 'Rey
would decide whether it was calculated to prevent the incon-
veniencies•which might arise from the Queen's situation.
The Noble Earl concluded by observing, that he had ven.
turgid to say thus much in the!discharge of a painful duty.
Th'e LORD CHANCELLOR said'he had attended Divorce'
causes' in that House many years, and must 'be supposed to
have some experience in divorce matters. Sir W. Blackstone,
in his Commentaries treated 'marriage.merrly,as a civil con-
tract, but he never could bring his mind to consider it so.'
It was a religious contract. - It was •nott he child of the law,
but she parent. The beginning of the foundation—" In-
c m ipio • verbo fienditentiim ,societatis.The EcclesiastiCal
Law saki, those whom God hath put together.• let no man
put asunder. It was plainly, 1 berefore, a religious coot; act,
and no Man could put away his wife unless metes minds were
divided on religious subjects. His opinion was, that it was
a civil contract in some •cases, .but unless the Ecclesiasti.'
cal Law was of 110 avail it was a religious contract. It
was civil only with respect to public rights: Divorces
a ciaculo .matrinzonii were' unknown to the 'civil laws, but•
Parliament had been in the habit of interposing to give relief
in cases where neither the common law our Ecclesiastical
late •would apply ; 'and the principle on which their Lord.-
ships acted, was to look at the proceeding, as a -matter of
public expediency. Down to the peri•al 1795, they had no
Standing Order that a person applying fur a Divorce Bill,
should bring his proceedings from the 'Ecclesiastical Court.
In 1795, the House made that Order-that the person might
prove the ground of divorce. They laid it dower as a genes
ral rule, that they would never grant the extraordinaryrc.

lief sought fist by the parties, unless they had the means of
knowing whether the parties were intitfed to relief or not.--,
They said you shall satisfy the Ecclesiastical Court before
you come to the HOUse of Lords for a liivirice a vincalo
matrinzonii. This was done with a view to the expediency
of public morals, and if so the'Noble and, Learned. Lord beg-
ged leave to say, on the gobject of recrimination, • he had not
been able to find any authority in the Bible, which stated that
a Woman who had comMitted adultery waS to he consider-
ed innocent because her husband did the same thing. They
had however to protect the iniblic intirals,and they' said When
a man had forfeited • his own obligations as a husband,
,he
should not come and complain of breach of ditty in his wife ;
but there was only tine instance in Which their Lordships
granted a divorce to a woman, who applied in the way of re-
crimination, and that was Mri.Alistin's case. Theii•LortlihiPs
in that instance also relaxed a general rule with respect to
bringing an action. The woman could bring no action agilinst
her sister, who was the adulteress in the cast,. The House
went further, and they said its :Bather instance, if there had
been a separation, in which both parties had given rep their
duties, there should be no divorce. " God forbid tbat should
be a general rule (said the Noble and Learned Lord), because
any woman might make it impossible fur a man to live
with his wife, and after separation; having &leen him to
the act, there would be no relief for him—no divorce."—
That House could only say, a man should not take MiVan-
tage of his own bad faith to his wife, A Noble Lord in'
the Gallery appeared to think the House could not proceed
unless kthere had beets an application front his Majesty;
and another Noble Lotd had said it was impossible to. go oil,
because they would have to tender the Bill to his Majesty.--
His answer to that was, in eases of adultery his Majesty must
unavoidably gore his consent to such a Bill in the ordinary
way. What would have been the case, if the case had been
high treason, and that a-conVictiOn had taken place ? The
divorce could not take place in that event without execution,
and the act of the King was indispensably necesskry to the
Performance of that. The Noble' Lord' then contended, that
if some clause were not introduced which would most effec-
tually separate the parties, the Queen would be by the Bill,
without the divorce, bound more closely to his Majesty.—
' Many Noble Lords had voted for tite seCutid reading of the
Bill, and they could not suppose they were to find her
Majesty guilty, and there stop. They had come to consider
the truth. of the preamble- of, the Bill, which no man Who
voted for the second reading could doubt. With regard to
the enactment, lithe whole were agreed to, her Majesty would
be divorced a vincula matrimonii, which deprived her of all
' rights and,privileges; but if there was no divorce a vinculo
malrimomii, the House most go on to say in what respect
those rights and privileges were to be taken away—Whether
it was the Archbishop of Canterbury. sitting in one seat,: or
' the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other side the House,
who , entertained particular opinions respecting. the Bill,
the public interest required the privileges and rights of the
Qui-en/0 he clearly understood. The-Queen, as afemniecoveil.
and a subject, had power which nu woman had; as a fentmt
sole she could give'and take without the King. She was by
law a person of independent property, and her claims would
be more powerful if not 'cot away by this Bill. If they took
away the-establishment as Queen, and left her mere)), the
King's wife, she would possess more advantages than any othet
woman. They would in that casetake away the King's rights
and place her in a better condition. The Noble Lord, after
having-repeated hiveonviction of the Queen's guilt, said be
would reserve his opinion as to the retaining or omitting the
Divorce Clause until lie should hear the sentiments of many
Noble Lords, and he trusted he should hear the-sentiments of
/he whole House expressed in some other way than by the
words Content or Not Content.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the House should
adjourn.to to-morrow-morning.

The Marquess of LANSDOWN said he opposed the Bill in
geio, but he did not' conceive himself bound by any decisiOn
of yesterday.
Lord DUNCAN observed, that he would not let pass the
present opportunity of making a few observations. Ile was
decidedly of opinion that this was a foul conspiracy of sub-
ornation and perjury. " It is," said the Noble Lord, " a
conspiracy so foul and so profligate, that I for one feel no he-
sitation in putting my hand•tO my heart, and pronouncing,
conscientiously and before God, a verdict of—Not Guilty"—
(Cheers.)
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that as the question
was to go off to to-morrow, the regular course was, that
the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit
again.
Earl GROSVENOR said,', the first'question to be put was,
" that this clause stand part of the Bill."
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that an adjournment boa
brew moved.

The CHAIRMAN•(the Earl of Shaftesbury) said he could
not, their Lordships being in Coluthittee, put 'the question
that the Home do adjourn. The usual form was to more
that the House do tesnme, and then to more the adjournment.
The question was then put, that the House do resume, and
reported that the 6' Contents" had it—(Cries of °' the Non-
Contents bare it.")—A division was called for, and the House
waft partially cleared of strangers, but their Lordships did not
divide.—Adjourned at- Four n't_ lock.

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

[DAILY EXTRACTS FROM THE MORNING PAPERS.]

[Morning Post.]
THE QUEEN. —The Bill of Pains and Penal-
ties was yesterday committed. Previously to
their Lordships going into the Committee, Lord
Dacre read and presented a Protest from the
Queen, one part of which is so lamentably
solemn, that we sincerely. regret its appearance.
There is certainly nothing new in her Majesty's
assertion of her innocence ; for she had fre-
quently before made open declarations to the same
cifect. But she then gave the public to understand
that •she had ample' means" of prOviiia' her inno-
cence to the satisfaction of the world. For thiS
Purpose, being provided with'unlirnited pecuniary
resources, she caused numberless persons to be
brought from the Continent to disprove the testi-
mony of the witnesses for the prosecution ; but
instead of doing_this, the most credible of her
Majesty's Witnesses fully substantiated all the
main charges, and confirmed the most' damning of
'the alledged facts. Still, however, it was ex-
pected that Countess Oldi, Iklariette, Sacchini,
Hieronymus, and. others, whorn. her Majesty's
Counsel had stated would speak immediately to
various other tremendous circumstances, would
be called. If there were any falsehoods asserted
respecting the pillows, the sleeping in Bergami's
room, the crying of the child in consequence•of
the absence of the Queen, the disgusting trans
action in the travelling carriage, the tent scene
at Jerusalem (that of the •polacre admitted of no
disproof after the " gallant" HoWnam's confir-
mation of it), and other dreadful facts, Oldi,
Mariette, &c., who were present on all the oc-
casions, alluded to, would have satisfied the Pub-
lic respecting ,them. Why, therefore, were they
not called ? They were all at' Brandenburgh
House ; and it is really insulting to common sense
any longer to talk of innocence, when the, only
persons who could give semblance of proof
were withheld by her Majesty herself and
the subtle Counsel who had 'undertaken the
desperate' task of her 'defence. In proteSting
against the proceedings-of -the House of • Lords,
the Queen alleges that Peers have given their
voices against her; w he were absent 'on her de-
fence. Now, it so happens that 'only one Pear
of, this description voted for the second reading
of,the Bill (and his Lordship has amply justified
his conduct in this respect); while another voted
against the Bill, who acknowledged that he had
net had the same opportunities of making himself
master of the subject The Insinuation against
the Members of the Secret Committee (ones if
not more, of whom have voted against the Bill)
is really unworthy even of the intemperance of

Mr-..l3rougham, and cannot'lle justified up"ori aiy
gentleManlsy or honoUrable- principle ; and the
Protest, on the whole, is of so extraordinary, not
to say outrageous a description; that their Lord .
ships. have conceded much in suffering it to be
received, even with the qualifiCation of the ex-
pression of their disapprobation of its exception-
able matter.

[The Time's.]
The cause of that plurality, which it is dc-knOwledged is too small to be sent dOWn to
the House of Commons, was in Part explained
yesterday : it is, in fact, a Ministerial majority
in the House of Lords, with these circum-
stances in addition—that it has been procured
by such exertions as were. never yet used to
obtain a-majority in either House, and that the
object aimed at is the destruCtion of the Queen
of England—a person, above all others, from her
sorrows, her wrongs, her gallant cOurage, and
lofty mind, most peculiarly dear to the British
Nation. " This woman," to use the language of
a Noble and Learned Lord, " has, in the Strict and
legal sense of the word, been aksiis'sfrittted for
more than twenty-five years." She has been pur-
sued by wretches, not armed with poison and
daggers, like the emissaries of " the Old Man of
the Mountain," but-with falsehood and perjdriei
aimed at her head for so long a time ; and this is
all the- advantage which has been gained against
her (surely there must be a peculiar Providence
shielding her round)—that, in a Court where
her Accusers sit along with her Judges., a majo-
rity of only 28 out of 118 Members has been ob-
tained. We again say that human purity was.
never subjected to such an ordeal. Suppose
charges of six years' standing were now brought
against any, other female, the most virtuous in
these realms, framed by a secret commission, ex-
tracted from witnesses who were feeed to watch
.her every action ; is' it credible that such
a female, but. by some peculiar dispensa-
tion of Providence could by any possibility
disprove so much as has been disproved by
the Queen of England? Who recollects What.
they were doing. from six to three years ago ;
where they were; how they slept ;- by Nv horn
they. were surrounded? But, above all, who can'
makeothersrecollect these' circumstances, each
having in his-own case his own particular affairs
to occupy the first place in his memory and
attention ? There was a finessing used yester-
day which we should not have expected in so
grave a cause, and which cruelly,.exhibited
the affair as a mere party. conflict. The divorce
clause was so objected to, that we have no
doubt it will be ultimately omittetL But why
did the Lord Chancellor decline giving any opi-
nion on the point, calling for that of the lead-
ing Lords of- the Opposition ? Why, Lord Grey,
Lord Lansdown, and the rest, have declared the
charge to be in their opinion unproved. How,
then, can. they vote for the divorce as the con-
sequence of:a refuted imputation ? But Ministers'
assured the House, that unless' the " evidence
carried conviction to the bosom of' every plain
and reasonable man," the Bill ought to be given
up. Where is the accomplishment of this pro-
mise ? It has not carried conviction to the bosoria
of Noble Lords above-mentioned; to scores
in the House of which they are. Members, and
millions out of. it. Arebot Lords Lansdown and
Grey 'reasonable men ?

[New Times.]
The relative Majority and 'Minority may. be•
estimated in two ways, according as the question
is referred to the nature of the Bill, or to the
conduct of the Queen. It is true that the second
yeading of the Bill was carried only-by .a majority
of 28, because many opposed it on grounds of'
policy or expediency, though they. avowedly be-
lieved the Queen to be guilty ; whereas not:a
single vote could possibly be giVen for the Bill
but on a!perfect 'Conviction 'of her guilt. Of near
thirty Peers who have spoken, not above two or
three bave.distinctly declared her Majesty free
from blame;. and there is little doubt but that if
the proceeding had.been of a natureto demand-a
sentence of guilty or not guilty, she must have
been condemned by a majority of three to one. It
has been'objected that some Peers voted without
having been present at the whole of the proceed-
. •
lugs. This happened to Lord Ashburton, who
voted against, well as to two or three Peers, who
voted fore the Bill; but they had a perfect right
So to do; they 'would have had that right had the
question been purely a judicial one, much more
as it was legislative. how could Hastings's trial
have been deterrilined had .no Peer voted who
did not regularly attend threughout the whole
seven years ? In the present case,' the Peers
who were casually kept away by illness or other-
wise,.carefully studied the evidence, and if they
lost Mr. Denman's laW or his Greek, they lost
what they were not at all bound to acquire,
and What if they had acqUired it would have been
pf very little value. The votes of the Reverend
Vrelates have been objected to by those whose
objections to the Prelacy lie much deeper. Out
Of 30 Member S-of that Venerable Bo'dy only 12
voted of these one half, from age or present
eminence, can have nothing to look for from an v
earthly PatrOn: and it must_ be remembered
that the Archbishop of York, who on conscien-
cious' scruples oppOsed .the Bill, Confessed him-
self it the-same tithe persuaded of her Majesty's
Criminality.

[Morning ChronidO.]
Are not thoSe whO immediately encircle the
Throne alarmed? Is not the general Aristocracy
of the Country in danger, when the fountain of
all its honours. is about to be polluted ? Once
bring the King into contempt by a recorded Act
of one of theconstitnent Parts of the Constitution,
it will be no consolation then to say, we thought
in the multitude of CounSellors there was much
wisdom. The fool tossed to. and fro by every
gust of passion—the man who prefers the'com.
plaCency of the moment to the next hour's
certain good—he • who thinks to qpiet his
conscience because he had not courage to
act justly in the first instance, will deter.
mine, that the Queen of England, though not a
fit wife for a common subject, is good enough for