Star.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

NUMBER 10,447.

PRICE SEEti -PEN CF.

sure to be guilty, but was sentenced to be boiled
alive. This was the triumphant species of example
by which-the Learned Bishop had attempted to de-
fend a proceeding which was contrary to every esta- •
blished doctrine of law, it might be stated, that in
tumultuous times, when great danger was appre-
hended, this arbitrary proceeding might be resorted
to, and justified on the ground of necessity. But
Where was the dither in.the present case? Where
was the necessity of a Parliamentary instead of a
judicial proceeding ? And in the case of Sir John
Feuwick, which was so much relied on, what evil
was likely to have been endured by the country if
the Bill of Pains and Penalties had not been adopted?
If the case now brought under the consideration of
Parliament bad not been inquired into at all, what-
danger had the country a right to apprehend ? The'
conduct—die.votes, he would say, of the House of
Commons—the conduct of Ministers themselves, who
were the accusers on this occasion—shewed that, • so
far from any dahger being apprehended from keep-
ing this question back. they would willingly em-
brace any mode by which they could possibly get
out of this disagreeable scrape—(Hear., hear).--
Was it not. then a case that violated all the princi•
plea of justice, when they were called on to make a
law by which an individual who had not committed .
any " legal crime" might be found guilty ? Was it not
monstrous to ask their Lordships to pass a law of this
kind in the absence of all ground of public danger?
Looking to the tase, under all these 'eh cumstances,
the Public had not—as they felt they had not—any
decided interest In this proceeding. If the Noble
Earl who brought the measure forward would rise
in his place, and state that he, apprehended any real
danger to the succession to the Crown of these realms
—if he would state to their Lordships and. the Public
some strong and paramount reasons for adopting
such a system, he would pay the utmost attention to
that declaration. But he believed there was net one
of their Lordships who imagined. that any such
ground could be stated. Their Lordships must not
forget the situation in which her Majesty was placed
at the period when the th.irges contained in this Bill
originated. Her's was not a common situation. Long
prior to the perioA-to which he alluded, in conse-
quence of unfertenate circumstances—circumstances
not unnsual to fin man nature, and which alone could
be at:cowl:R.l for by a reArence to human infirmity,
which so:reliiiei disturbed the tranquillity of Mar-
ried.life—for nearly Z) rears before the circumstan-
ces which gave rise to this cliscutsion, this Illustrious
Personage 1.:;:,1 zsct only been estranged-from the af-
aections of Ler Itoyai Censort, but she haeilvvn shut
from the Coart of the late Queen, and denied access
to any' of the Royal Family. She hadsbeen placed
in a. situation of so per Ulla?' a description, that, if
eery °cheer individtial had !teen similarly situated,
their Lordships well knew that they would not suffer
a Bill of Divorce tObe-introduced to their House in
consequence-of any fault that might have bem com-
mitted under such circumstances. Ile would assert,
that her Majesty had been placed' in a situation, in
which no individual throughout the conniryy.from
the highest to the lowest, ought to have been
.placed.
Even admitting the charge to be true. (and* this he
did merely for the sake of argument,. for Of the
charges themselves he knew nothing), admitting
them to be correct to the full extent tit which they
were insinuated, not diiectiy made till he felt that,
' under the peculiar circun:stances of thisextraordi-
nary case, it would have been better not -to hitve
made them public. It would have been well, he
thought, if Ministers had stifle ed the Alps and the
Appennines, the boundaries of distant realms, and
the wide extent of seas and oceans, -to thieve a veil
over those events which they had so eagerly brought
forward—(Hear, hear).—What they bad done tended
only to oisturb the public peace—to injure the Teel- .
ings of the country—to disgust every individual in
the empire—and to excite that irritation of mind
which could not exist without endangering the safety
of the State—(Hear, hear.---Under these circum-
stances, be thought that the whole of these proceed-
ings were most objectionable—and that they were
calculated to divide and distract the ctimtry (Hear).
The Bill was founded on a fictitious opinii n, that the
Public bad a deep interest in this matter: but, instead
Qf having an interest in promoting, they had the
strongestinterest in repressing this proceeding. But,
if their Lordships thought, contrary to his opinion,
that this inquiry should be continued, he certainly
would contend that the Bill, new before them was
not the preferable mode of efFecting that object. It
.appeared to him that they had no right to go into
evidence on the allegations contained in the Bill then
before the House. The Bill, instead of pointing out
some clearly defined and pecific acts of guilt; some
proceeding of a criminal nature, commenced With a
long article of accusation, not one single word of
which pointed at a tangible charge. k wakgravely
stated as a matter of offence, thatx foreigner, wito
filled an lutinble situation, had been promoted
Was nothing of the kind ever known in this colintey?
Were none honoured with promotion here but per-
sons of high bit tit ? Was England the country in
which the conferring distinction on an individual of
worth was to be brought forward as-matter of crimi-
nal charge? Had no persons similarly-situated been
ever -promoted here? Ilad not individuals, origi-
. nally occupied in an humble manlier in this country,
sometime; possessed the confidence of men of high
rink, who, with all their power and influence, had
assisted :n raising the fortunes of those individuali?
(If this were admitted onstitutec.4 as this coun
try was, it must be admit,-,:). then be arqued that
' this point of charge was °neon wt: ti:cy had no right
to go into evidence. The oi:ly charge they had any
right to consider, was :t sort of make-weight at the
end of the Bill, where an adulterous intercourse was
spoken of, 'but not in distinct and definite.terms.--
This, if made clearly and distinctly, would be a
charge Of very:considerable magnitude. But those
who Drought it forward seemed, b,, the way in which