Star.
London, England, 1820-09-19 00:00:00

upon every occasion where the national voice was
raised ? Was it not-an. excuse ready at all times to
act in direct contradictiOn to the wishes of the coun-
try ?—(Hear, hear).—But the motion was not on the
surface ; the feeling was deep And intense, and it
sprang from a love of justice and a hatred of oppres-
s sion ; from sentiments that had always distinguished
and done honour to the inhabitants of these king-
doms, and which it was the duty and interest of the
Government rather to cherish than to destroy. Next,
could the King (if his name might be mentioned) be
benefited by perseverance ? Unquestionably not,
for it was now said that the Bill was not for the re-
lief of his Majesty, since only that part of it would
pass which degraded the Queen, and not that part by
which she was to be divorced. What, then, could
be its object? Suppose the Right Hon. Gentlemen
opposite should be cursed with the accomplishment
of their desires in this respect, in what situation
would the Illustrious Parties be placed? The only
result could be, that the Queen would be proved to
be a strumpet, and the King—what he would not
mention in that Muse !—(Cheers). Who, then, would
be the gainers, for even Ministers themselves must be
severe sufferers ? Had the Noble Lord and his col-
leagues taken into consideration what must in any
case be the event ? Would they ever be able to carry
their Bill into execution ? If they consulted the opi-
nions and feelings of the lower orders,• whom they
were so much in the habit of despising, they would
fin&that it would be impossible. But if, as the Prime
Minister had stated, one part of the measure was to
be rejected, why not throw it-out, altogether ?—why
was one clause to be kept for the sole purpose of de-
grading the King, the Parliament, and the country,
under pretence (and pretence only) of degrading the
Queen ? In Goo's name let a stop be put to all such
ruinous proceedings! What had appeared during
the inquiry ? Supposing it true, was it to the honour
of the Nation? And what well-wisher to the cha-
racter of Great Britain in the eyes of foreign nations
would not gladly witness the termination and aban-
donment of the whole? The degradation was not
merely at home, but abroad—it was here, these, and
everywhere : our Ambassadors, our Officers, and our
Lawyers, had become spies, eves-droppers, and su-
borners of peijury !—(Continued cheers). At last, to
complete the picture, our Parliament, the Peers of
England—the representatives of noble families, and
the descendants of heroic ancestors—the pillars of
the state—were sent to pry inrofoul clothes-bags, and
to pore over the contents of chamber-atensils
pealed cheering).—Was such the legitimate duty of
a Peer of Parliament ? Was this the mode in which
the law-makers of the greatest country in the world
should be employed ? Was it fit that the Commons
s could follow such an example: Was this House, is
solemn mockery, to sit down to the examination of
charges rejected with. disgust and detestation by the
whole body of the people? He was not now speaking
on behalf of the King, the Queen, or the Nation ; but,
even if it were severe upon her Majesty to stop at
this moment, before the opening of her defence, he
still should. say " Stop, and reject this most infamous
Bill." At the same time he must say, that he did
not think the Queen would suffer; it was very well
for her Learned Counsel to implore a continuation,
for he knew how everything in the end would re-
dound to the disgrace and confusion of her prosecu-
tors; but enough had now been done to shew that
the preamb7e of the Biil hail not the slightest foun-
dation, supported as it had been by documents in the
green bag, unn wiry to be submitted to any man of
common sense, common decency, or common ho-
nesty !—(Hoar, hear). The national feeling was ob-
vious from the precautions taken against it. The
Lo-ds had literally hedged and paled themselves in
by a standing army ; and in the same way the Com-
mons, he supposed, would be required to put them-
'elves in garrison, under the _protection of the mili-
tary, until, at last, the sentence was verified—obses-
saw curiam et clausent aratis senalum. What a figure
must England cut in the eyes of Europe, when her
Representatives should be obliged to fence them-
selves round with brist:ing bayonets, because there
was no sympathy between them and the people !
(11ear, hear). The best mode therefore seemed, un-
der all the circumstances, to be, to adopt some such
motion as was offered by a Noble Lord at the last
Meeting—that his Majesty would be pleased to pro-
rogue Parliament, and thereby suspend at once all
proceedings against the Queen. There was one ques-
tion he should like to ask beline he sat down—and
that was, who was to pay for all this.?—(Cheers).
He supposed that the Nation must pay (for he did
not imagine that the Noble Lord an 4 his colleagues
would be-very willing to bear the disbursement);
and then arose the inquiry, what it paid for? Did it
pay for honour or glory ? No : it was compelled to
pay for that which was contrary to its most delibe-
rate wishes and most valuable interests. At least, it
was reasonable to tell it how much it would be called
upon to pay ; but even this was denied, tho. Minis-
ters were very ready to disclose how much money
had been paid to the Queen: they determined to say
nothing of the heavy charges incurred by .the prose-
cutors. There was another reason for abandoning
the Bill, which he should have mentioned before had
it occurred to him ; and it was this—that the House
of Lords were not acting as Judges and Jury, but as
prosecutors. On the first day the Attorney-General
being asked, stated that he appeared by order of their
Lordships; and, if so, it was not easy to know how
they could order him to attend to support the Bill,
unless they were its prosecutors. This was another
deformity to be added to this monstrous tribunal.
Suppose this measure were at once rejected, would
Parliament be disgraced? If it were, it would be the
doing of the Noble Lord : he had heaped the dis-
grace upon the Nation, and he (nr. Hobhouse), feel-
tog no respect for the Noble Lord, had no difficulty
in speaking freely what he thought of his conduct.
The whole fabric had broken down under those who
bad heaped together the frail materials, and it was
mere folly not to be taught by experience. He could
not divine a reason why Ministers should object to a
prorogation, which would save them an immense
quantity of trouble, anxiety, and disappointment. A
great deal hadobeen said, indeed, about not being in-
timidated by the people, but he could see no disgrace
in being taught by experience—in withdrawing what
was most detrimental—in being intimidated from
doing what was wrong, unjust, and injurious. On
these grounds he should move, as an Amendment,
4g That an hankie Address be presented to his Ma-