The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-20 00:00:00

LONDON JOURNALS.

[DAILY EXTRACTS.)

FROM TIDE MORNING PAPERS C? 'MIS DAY.

•
Pforniqg-Ta.<
•
QU
Tire House of4LostPx Aast,night., rojecteelre
Petition of the CorriniOn Council against the pro.;
ceedings in regard -to the Queen ; and in this
their Lordships consulted not only their own dig-
nity, but decided with a correct view to the ends
of impartial justice. It is really abominable to
see such men as Alderman Wood, Mr. Favell,
and Alderman Waithman, pretending to dispute
the legal and constitutional character of the
proceedings adopted by the House of Lords,
sanctioned as they are by all the great Law
Authorities of the Land. Lord Erskine;
though he consented to present the silly, Petition,
did not attempt to defend it ; and even Lord
Holland could not help ridiculing the rude pre-
sumption of the Petitioners, who, as Lord Lau-
derdale (another Opposition Peer). facetiously but
justly observed, were anxious to appear as having
a better knowledge of their , Lordships' pro-
ceedings than they had• themselves! His Lord-
ship exposed the falsehood of the assertion of
the Bill.having
.originated in the Secret Com-
mittee, who merely gave their opinion upon the'
allegations in the cidcuments referred to their
consideration ; and• Lord Itedesdale and the
Lord Chancellor treated the presumption of
the weak or mischievous meddlers With just
ridicule and indignation—the former depre-
cating.the idea of their Lordships not proceeding
with a Bill upon a most important subject, except
in such manner as a few citizens should think
proper ; and the latter truly observing that the
Petitioners had no right to interfere in the man-
ner they had done. The House, his Lordship
added, should act upon its own principles of ju7.
dicial proceeding, as they had existed for ages ;
to uphold which,he believed,would be to support
the best interests of the community.

•
[FROM A CORRESPONDENT.]—The Public have
often complained of the expensive establishments for audit-
ing public accounts;, individuals, with more reason, have
complain) d of the delay in getting their accounts passed
through these. Offices. The case of the lion. IlAstb Costa=
t+ A N.h.: appears peculiarly worthy of attention. This Gentle-
man, in consequence of the backward state of the audit of
his accounts in one of the Public Offices (its particularly taken
notice of and commented upon by the Commissioners of Re:
vision in their Tenth Report, dated Augnst the 11th, 18(17).
was, in the year 1806, obliged to assign over a contract, and
to return to England, anxious to ge.-. his accounts brought to
a close during his lite. Alter being harassed for 13 yeas in
resisting large claims brought against him, and after defend-
ing air expensive snit in the Court of Exchequer, be has at
last succeeded in the final adjustment of his accounts, and
has actually received a balance upon then), and is thus ac-
knowledged to have been a public creditor, instead of a pub-
lic debtor.—(lbid.)
We have extracted the foregoing article from the most
re~luetahte and impartial of all the Morning Papers, to ,liew
tjuit we are animated by the' same impartiality and regard to
public justice. t'Ve know, however, that the othee .ttpilosed
to lie alluded to is disting,nish.ed for attention as well asaccu-
racy, and it will readily tieadontted, that circumstances may
have occasioned delay in a 'particular case, which might not
to affect its general character for assiduity, correctness, and

[Morning Clirunick.]
The Ministerial Papers se,em determined to
make the most of the mistake under 'which her
Majesty was with regard to the property of the
plate. We really do not see that this mistake
either justifies their triumph, or the language
held by Lord Castlereagh to Dr. Lushington.
Her Majesty might well be excused for not know-
ing the distinction between property belonging
to the Crown, and property purchased out of the
Privy Purse.

[New Times.]
'We are sorry to observe that a worthy member
of the Common Council regards marriage as a
Sacrament. This is well known to be a dis-
tinctive doctrine of the Church of Rome; and
though we have no other reason to believe
that Mr. Favell is a Papist, yet this state-
ment (if his speech be accurately reported) would
necessarily make us believe that such are his
religious principles. Two solutions however pre-
sent themselves—one, that the worthy Common
Councilman did not exactly know what he was
saying ; the other that he expressed himself so ob-
scurely as to mislead the Gentlemen by whom
his speech was reported. Perhaps he took his
ideas on this, as he seems to do on many other
subjects, from the Leading Journal of Europe,
which a few days ago dealt forth some pre-
cious nonsense on " the impiety of dissolving
marriage without allowing of recrimination."—
in the Roman Catholic Church, it is true,
where marriage is held a Sacrament, there may
be a reasonable ground for this plea of im-
piety ; but then it must be remembered, that
marriage in that Church can neither be dissolved
with nor without recrimination ; bu the law and
Constitution of England proceed on different
principles. They regard marriage as a civil con-
tract, though of a sacred character, and they
leave its dissolution entirely to the Supreme Le-
gislative Power of the State. Scarcely a Session
passes without the actual exercise of that power ;
and it is exercised, in each distinct case, upon its
own separate grounds. The Legislature is bound
down by no rule whatever to admit a recrimi-
native plea ; it may do so for the sake of civil
justice between private parties ; but where the
question is of a public and criminal nature, it is
manifest that recrimination cannot bear upon it
in the slightest degree. The Legislature has to
determine whether the conduct of the Queen has
been such as to render her unlit for the discharge
of, her high regal duties. She is a subject, and
they may therefore entertain such a question re-
specting her ; but respecting the King, they can-
not legally or constitutionally institute any such
inquiry. If they should decide that the Queen
can no longer continue Queen Consort, they
must, as a corollary to that determination, pro-'
nounce her to be no longer Consort of the King.
[The Times.]
The Petition from the Court of Common. Coun-
cil against the proceedings instituted in the case