The Sun.
London, England, 1820-09-08 00:00:00

,

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1820.

Bishops had determined against the Divorce, and
that Ministers were satisfied they could not carry
it ; the result has proved that our informa-
tion was correct.

Warning Herald.]
The proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Pe-
ualties made a rapid . stride: yester4ay. The
abandoned his application bf the
preceding day,• for a few days' delay, in order
to give time for the arrival of some witnesses who
had been frightened away from the shores of
England by the tumult at Doter, upon the first
arrival of foreign witnesses. The Learned Gen-
tleman stated, that letters froin Milan had in-
duced him" to withdraw his application. Theo-
dore Majocci was then called in, cross-examined
by Mr: Brougham, re-examined by the Attor-
ney-General, and dismissed from the Bar. Some•
observations were then made by • several Peers
upon the alleged threat of Col. Brown, at Milan,
of having the Alie❑ Bill. enforced against young
llarietti in London. The topic was intro-
duced by Lord Lansdowne; for the purpose of
obtaining a distinct explanation. Lord Liver-
pool stated that up to his seeing .the letter of the
elder Marietti, he was ignorant of the fact that
such a person was iu London ; that there was not
the remotest contemplation of applying the Alien
Act to him, that upon the first intiMation of this
Matter Colonel Brown had been written to, and
that his answer should be communicated. The
Noble Marquis and Lord Holland expressed
themselves perfectly satisfies with the Noble
Earl's explanation.

[Morning Post.]

The case for the prosecution against the Queen
was yesterday closed, the Attorney-General hav-
ing withdrawn his request: for more time to ad-
duce further evidence, in consequence of a letter
received by him in the morning from Milan, by
which he found that it would require a much
longer time tobring forward the new witnesses
than he had anticipated on the preceding day.—
Theod6re Majocci was again called in and cross-
examined by Mr. Brougham; after which he was
re-examined by the Attorney-General. Neither
of these examinations, however, was productive
of any material new discovery. Mr. Brougham
having then distinctly stated that he did not
mean to have recourse to any further cross-exa-
mination at any time, the Solicitor:General pro-
ceeded to sum up the evidence, which task he
performed with equal candour and ability. We
have given a full and faithful.report of his excel-
lent Speech, to which we beg leave to refer our
Readers, not having space at present to enter
into any recapitulation of it. Mr. Brougham is
expected to commence the defence for her Ma-
jesty this day.—We find, by a reply to a ques-
tion put by the Earl of Lonsdale, that the course
which we early stated to have been judged most
proper to pursue, will ultimately be adopted.
The Earl of Liverpool stated, that his Majesty
had not the least wish that the present measure
should operate in the way of relief to himself
personally, his only object being that justice
should be done, and the honour of the country
upheld. If, therefore, the Bill proceeded to a
Committee, and it should be found that a strong
feeling existed, founded on religious or other
impressions (the Bishops are understood to have
some religious scruples with respect to the disso-
lution of the marriage), he should not press the
Divorce Clause upon their Lordships. In this
case, the Bill will be one of Degradation, Pains
and Penalties, but not of Divorce—an alteration
which, as we have already observed,. is -little
more than a return to the original intention of
the framers of the measure.

[New Times.]
The case in support of the Bill of Pains and
Penalties has at I(ngth been closed. The Attor-
ney-General finding that the remaining witnesses
could not be expeCted in a short time, very pro-
perly resolved not to prolong the state of anxiety
in which all parties must be placed by delay,
and accordingly. the Solicitor-General, in a cur-
sory manner, summed up the evidence, contend-
ing that it ormed a case still stronger than the
opening statement of his Learned Leader. It was
most fairly and honourably admitted..,by Lord
Liverpool, that whatever might he .the impres-
sion on the minds of individual Peers, no one
ought at the present moment to form a conclusive
opinion on the guilt or innocence of her Majesty.
When the defence is closed that decision must be
made, and should it unfortunately lead to the adop-
tion of the Bill, then will be the time to consider
the proper extent of the penalties. For our own
part, we have uo hesitation to declare at once,
that if the preamble be deemed to be fully borne
out in evidence, the penal clauses will appear
to us to be necessary, however painful, con-
sequences of the offence. If a Queen Consort
of these realms be proved to have been guilty of
long habitual adulterous intercourse with a me-
nial, we cannot see how the national morals are
to be preserved from the grossest contamination,
but by solemnly degrading her\ from her rank
and dignities ; and that degradation could not
be rendered complete without a Divorce. If the
bond of marriage were not dissolved, she would
remain the Consort of the King, and consequent-
ly would be, in spite of any other form of degra-
dation, still Queen Consort. In this opinion Earl
Grey seems to coincide. Either her Majesty is
innocent, and then she is not to be degraded at
all, or she is guilty, and then she must be di-
vorced in order to her being effectually degraded.