Star.
London, England, 1820-11-09 00:00:00

THE EVENING STAR.

•

LOJ

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1820.
Loss Moros's Am—Hob* at tile Bask.

THE QUEEN.

After closing our report of the proceedings Tester.
day, in our Second Edition, we offered some remarks,
which we shall here repeat :
" The fate of the Divorce Clause occasions no small
degree of amazement in every direction. By the car-
rying of this Clause, it might appear, on the first an-
nouncement of the fact, that Ministers would inevit-
ably succeed in carrying the Bill, on the third reading.
But it is extremely possible that the carrying of this
Clause will cause the rejection of the Bill ; for
many who voted for the
tecond reading, did so in
the belief that the Divorce Clause would be struck
lout in the Committee on the Bill ; and declared that
they could not, in their consciences, vote for a third
reading, were this Clause retained ! Many of'the ar-
mies of the QUERN even assert that a majority for the
Clause was manoeuvred, by some of her MaJzszea
friends voting fur the Clause, for the very purpose of
bringing the Bill to the third reading in that very
state in which many of its supporters on the second
reading had declared they could not, and would not,
give it their support.
" The dilemma in which some Lords have thus been
placed is exceedingly curious, and the Public wait to
see with what degree of consistency they will act on
the third reading. Even Lord LAUDERDALE has de-
clared himself against the Divorce Clause; that is, in
his opinion, it would either be unjust or impolitic, or
both, to enact such a clause : of course it would be
unjust or impolitic to read such a Bill a third time,
and we cannot anticipate that his Lordship will act
in a way which he has condemned, by saying
• content ' on the third reading."
We find from the Morning Papers of this day,
that we were not singular in the foregoing view of
the probable result of yesterday's division, in which,
,as our Readers will see, nine ofthe Cabinet Ministers
werefound in the minority. In one word, the Divorce
Clause was carried by the enemies of the Bill—by
the QUEEN'S friends, and those convinced of her in-
nocence, that her enemies might be compelled to
swallow the whole of their own prescription, however
nauseous it may now have become, or reject it entirely.
We yesterday recommended to the consideration
of men sitting in the three-fold character of Accusers,
Jur)men, and Judges—[Were ever such characters
blended in this country, except when the laws of
England were set at defiance rj—we recommended
to their consideration, the words of Janus to the
Jewish Scribes and Pharisees—" HE that is trithbut
sin among YOU, let HIM first cast a stone at her:'
We intended this day to have endeavoured, for the
edification of some Bishops who, perhaps, think more
abcut other translation's than those of the Old and
New Testament, to have offered some observations
calculated to shew that neither, by the Laws of GOD
nor the Laws of England can their Lordships vote
for the Bill with the Divorce Clause; but we have
been so ably anticipated by a contemporary of this
morning (The Morning Chronicle), that, we are sure,
we shall gratify our Readers by quoting the article,
' .4 Sir WILLIAM SCOTT" in EVANS V. EVANS, says,
Marriage is a religious as well as civil contract
made at the altar of GOD, and indissoluble except for
a very few reasons known to the law: Judge BLACK-
STONE considers marriage merely a civil contract,
but we prefer the authority of Sir WILLIAM Score,
which coincides with the opinions of all the eminent
Civilians. The adultery of the wife is one of those
reasons, and that agrees with what Caaiar saith
in the 19th of St, Matthew and the 9ih verse, which
confines divorces to the single cause of adultery in
the wife, Now let us examine what our blessed
Loan did, and said, on a very memorable occasion—
' He that is without.sin among you, let him first cast
a stone at her: 4 He says to them in this answer, only
consider that he who is thus zealous in punishing also-
ther, should in all equity be free from guilt himself.
Whoever, therefore, among you has a clear and ine
nocent conscience, let him begin and cast the first
stone at the woman.' Dr. S. CLAftzr.--4 The first
gone was thrown by the first principal accuser: k
was of great bulk and weight, and generally fatal,'
Dent. 13th chap. and 9th verse. Our Loads
meaning is, I shall not condemn the woman myself,
for it is not my office ; you may do it, if you will
affirm yourselves to be those righteous men which
you desire to be accounted, but this you dare not do
before me, who, as ye well know, can prove the con.
trary, and give the by.standers such a history of
what you have been and what you are, as will
make you ashamed to shew yourselves, and therefore
it is that I challenge and defy you to proceed:—
Bishop Hotter:--4 And they which heard it being
convicted by their own conscience, went out one by
one,' 9th verse, Never was triumph more complete.
These hypocrites were self-convicted, confounded,and
disgraced before the multitude,' Dr. HALES. The
Law of England proceeds on the equity that the hus-
band should be free from guilt himself, and establish
his purity before two Tribunals, if it be possible, be-
fore he gets a divorce a vino:10 matrisonii, in the House
of LEA'S; A 4 AU swats the advitcry most be rand

by satisfactory evidence at the )3 sir of the House, and
it will be fatal to the application of the complainant,
should he appear to have been the treasivessor. We
understand that my Lords the Bishops have alba.
upon themselves to didele the preropfres,.et the
Cfown. Postponing this question for the ptMNt►'
we would ask their Lordships whether, keeping in

--
atialie Bth chapter of St. John an 7th yen*
the 15th chapter of Matthew, 19th 1 Cor.
6, 9 ; Gal. 6, 9 ; Hebrews, 13, 4: and the comma&
taxies cited by us, which the whole Bench of Mime
have sanctioned in a General Council in *S
edition of the Bible, edited by Drs. DOILISiLaiIi
MAN; Chaplains to the present Archbishop of CAI-
TIIIIBURTI and not forgetting what St. Peter saith—
'Of ' a truth I perceive Goa is no respecter of per-
sons'—can yen, with the Bible in your hands, let the
fatal stone be thrsvin ? Some of their Lordships argot
legally and *stay, the KING can do no wrong, and
that whatever wrong he did before he was Ktzto, is
purged by his being KiNo. Their Lordships are
often not very clear on Divine subjects, but when they
mix them with legal considerations, the compound
is likely to be rather heterogeneous. One Noble Lord
argues that the KING cannot commit a folly. much'
less a crime.-4 Black. Com. 32. His Lordship is
content with a very superficial investigation, for be
would have found that the authority BLACICaIONE
cites, warrants nothing of the kind. He refers to
}lmam P. C. 44, where the Judge writes, the Knso
is not under the coercive power of the lasi. The
KING can do no wrong ; bat this high prerogative
is created for the benefit of the people, and therefore
cannot be exerted to their prejudice. 1 Black. Com,
245.—See Nicols v. Nicols; Plowden, 487; Haw.
P. L. 391. Even DeLeit.sta knew 'that the KING
has not the power of doing ill, but only that he is out
of the reach of all Courts of Law whatever:—Delolme
on the English Const. 73. What says the Coronation
Oath ? Will you, to the best of your power, cause
law and justice, in mercy, to be executed, in all your
judgments?—' That the pretended power of dispens-
ing with laws; or the execution of laws, by legal
authority, as it bath been assumed and exercised of
late, is illegal'—See W. and M. c. 2, sec. 2. Same
of the Bishops say it is expedient, and therefore right.
We agree, if it be expedient, it is right; but then, as
PaLa'v says, 4 it must be expedient upon the whole,
at the long sun, in all its effects, collateral and re-
mote, as well as in those which are immediate and
direct; as it is obvious that, in computing conse-
quences, it makes no difference in what way, or
at what distance they ensue:—Paley, Mor. Phil. 83.
What would be the general consequence, that the,
Kirro, who is at the head of the Church, _might do
that with impunity which is contrary to the express
commands of GOD, and therefore, by evil example,
bring the religion of the country into contempt ? Is
this expedient ? So much for the reasonings of my
Lords the Bishops. Lawyers are accustomed to look
into authorities. Again, is it politically expedient to
pass the Bill without the Divorce Clause, and thereby
record a vote of censure on the conduct of the KING?
That is inexpedient, as yesterday determined ; thence
it is clear it is contrary to the religion of the coun-
try to pass the Bill with the Clause—so that, in
neither case, is the measure expedient."
But it is very possible that at the very moment
while we are quoting grave and solid opinions,
founded on the Scriptures, on the Law of England,
and on Expediency, their Lordships are actually oc-
cupied in giving their decision on this monstrous Bill
of Pains and Penalties. Yes, men who cannot, in
the nature of things, give an impartial, unbiassed
judgment on the case, are employed in arguing the
propriety and necessity of the Bill. Can Minis-
ters be impartial judges in this ease if they would ?
The infirmities of our' nature will not permit it.—
The acquital of the Quests is their own condemna-
tion ; and who shall dare to say that he can judge
impartially between himself and another? It is an
insult to the common sense of mankind to lay claim
to any such virtue.
vomM11•111

Lord LIVERPOOL stated, in a speech on Tuesday,
that he felt " that it was his duty to discharge in
that House the functions imposed upon him, without
any attempt privately to influence (and the occurrences
of yesterday would, he conceived, chew that no at-
tempt had been made privately to influence) in the
slightest degree the opinion or conduct of others."—
Lord Livitnroor. here admits, that in a case of this
kind Lords may be privately influenced, and he refers
us to some indefinite test by which we are to know
that he has not made use of his power. What an im-
putation he has here thrown out against the honesty of
the Peers t What a demand he makes at the same
time en our credulity I He admits that he had the
power of privately iithiewing the Peers if he chose,
and then is a case in which he is so deeply interested,
in which he openly betrays his partiality by his in.
isnanatory pleading, be requires us to believe that,
be has not used that power. Some good friend-of his
Lordship, we presame„ must have interested his
wishes, and taken the trouble of solicitation ot his,
heeds ; for bow otherwise are we to account for the
wenn canvass which brought even Peers to the de-
cision who did not hear the evidence ?
As our Readers have, no doubt, paid much men.
!ion to the arguments adduced by some Learned and
Reverend Lords on the propriety of divorcing her
MAMMY, they mazy not be displeased to be enabled
to compere with Owe effusioas the delibqratc