Star.
London, England, 1820-11-08 00:00:00

.41.
• • •

.

power from dissolution. Divorces had, notwithstanding, oc-
curred, both before add since the Reformation. They were,
rotwithstanding, consonant both with the Mosaic and with the
Christian dispensation. Our Saysous had said, that "he who
pp nth sway his wife for any other cause than adultery, causeth
••• bar o conintit adultery." Did not this obviously infer that
divorces were allowable? His Grace concluded by saying, that
he considered the charge of adultery established against her Ma-
jesty, and, under that conviction, he bad no objection of any de-
scription, least of all of a religious nature, to the Bill proceeding
in the form in which it now stood.
Lord KING said some few words, which were Inaudible at
the bar.
The Bishop of WORCESTER admitted that the question
of the Divorce was not without some difficulty ; but, consider-
ing how much the morals of the country were concerned in the
issue of this proceeding, he felt bound to give his support to the
Bill. (We understood this to be the purport of his Lordship's
observations, but lie spoke in a tone so inaudible at the bar, that
we cannot vouch for its accuracy.)
The Bishop of LLANDAFF thought the Divorce clause
should be retained. He did not see any force in the objection
made to It on a religions ground ; for he knew of nothing in the
Christian religion against a dissolution of marriage for adultery.
'The Bishop of LONDON agreed with his Right Reverend
Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury), that divorces were
authorised by the words of our Savioue. As to any objection
to the Divorce Clause of the Bill, founded on the supposed con-
duct of the complaining party, he thought it quite inapplicable.
A great constitutional principle was involved in the present
case. The King " could do no wrong ;" he could not commit a
folly, far less a crime ; and, therefore, recrimination was out of
the question ! (Hear, hear.)
lard LAUDERDALE, with due submission to the opinions
which had fallen from the Reverend Bench of Bishops, thought
that the House ought not to agree to the Divorce Clause. He
confessed that he approached this part of the question with some
difficulty, for he could not forget that it had been said in the
House, that were the Degradation to pass without the Di-
vorce, it would virtually be a degradation of the King.—
Were such to be its effect, he would be the last man to vote for
it ; but he denied that it involved any such consequence. Why
was it that he objected to the Divorce Clause? Was it because
be meant to say that his Majesty should be excluded from that
relief from the bonds of marriage, on cause shewn, which was
open to every subject in the country? No. Or was it because
his Majesty could not come before their Lordships in that
pure state which would defy recrimination? Certainly not.—
In wishing to exclude the Divorce Clause, he contented for no
other proposition than simply this, that the parties had not
come before them in a situation that admitted of Its application.
Her Majesty had acquired, by her marriage contract, rights
both public and private. She had been found disqualified for
exercising her public rights, and, therefore, she was by this
Bill to be deprived of them. But was this any ground fbr the
House going farther? Was there to be one law for the King
and one for the subject? No. He agreed with what had been
so ably urged on the subject by the Learned Doctor who had
spoken for the Defence, (Dr. Lushington,) that the law if
marriage was the same with regard to the highest as to tbo
lowest subject in the realm. If her Majesty should chum
to sue for Divorce, the application ought to be tried on the
same principle as the suit of any ordinary individual would
be tried. A Right Reverend Prelate had said, that the ILing
could do no wrong; that he could not, constitutionally spmk-
ing, commit any crime, and therefore, that there was no xenon
for recrimination. A very false idea of the whole of this ems
bad, he thought, arisen, from a misunderstanding as to the
word " recrimination." Adultery was no crime by the laws,
and could therefore form no ground of recrimination. It was
an injury from which relief might be sought by Divorce, but
the party applying for the relief must shew that be was no con-
senting party to the injury—( Ilene, hear). He saw no legal dif-
ficulty in adhering to this principle as well in the case of a Sove-
reign as of a subject—(Har, hear). The Rev. Prelate who spoke
last, seemed to think, that if adultery was proved the Divorce
clause might be passed, because no facts had been proved against
the husband. The Divorce clause appeared to him inconsistent.
The grounds on which he had voted for the measure were, that
the Queen was found guilty of crimes which rendered her unfit
to be at the head of the females of this country. But the conduct
of the King might he such as not to entitle him to a divorce.
Earl D ARS LET said, nothing that had fallen from the
Reverend Bench of Bishops had any influence on his mind.
A Reverend Prelate had said, there was nothing in the whole
scripture to prevent Divorce; but Scripture says, "He that
runeth away his wife, save for fornication, eauseth her to commit
aaidtery."--kie appealed to the House, if the Queen was put
away by her husband, and not for the crime of fornication, did
he not cause her tip commit adultery? And If so, and he came
for a Divorce, how, then, could their Lordships grant it ?
Ile felt that their Lordships could not pass this Bill, either with
or without the divorce clattse. Unless their Lordships divorced
the Queen, she must retain her rank and title. The wife of the
King must be Queen. He felt that such difficulties surrounded
this question, that their Lordships must get rid of it, and the
sooner the better.
The Bishops of LonsoN and LLANDATT explained.
Lord DONOUGHMORE was surprised that the Noble
Loud (Lauderdale) had risen to oppose the Divorce Clause. He
coild not fail to observe, that a difference of opinion existed
among the Rev. Bench of Bishops ; but the greater number of
them were unanimous. This Bill was not a suit depending
between two parties. The King was only the prosecutor as
the Head of the State, and was not personally contented.
He had not presented himself at their Lordships' Bar for a pri-
vate remedy. If it was thought that the facts proved against the
Queen were not such as to render het untit to hold her high
rank, all these proceedings went for nothing. lie did not wish
Royalty to be degraded; there was too much of that out of doors.
• The House had declared that the Queen was not fit to be the
Queen Consort, and their Lordships owed it to the country and
to the women of the country, that she should not continue the
wife of the King.--(Soine inattention having been manifested
during the speech of the Noble Earl, he said he treated such
conduct with sovereign contempt.]—lie then proceeded, and
said he thought it extremely hard, after their declared opinion
as to the Queen, that they should tie her still to his Majesty, and
give him no help. It was as a State measure that he had voted
for the Bill, and he thought it ought to be passed altogether;
for in what situation would they stand, if, after agreeing.
that the Preamble had been proved, they should refuse to pass
the Divorce Clause ?
The Bishop of CHESTER said, no consideration whatever
•
would induce him to pass the Bill with the Divorce clause.
The Earl of ll A BROW BY thought, that the introduction
of the Clause might be supposed as if intended to give relief to
particular individual, which was not the case. The Noble
Lord declared that he saw no necessity for the Divorce Clause
under all the circumstances of the case, as this was a Bill, not
for the personal benefit of the Sovereign, but for the public
service.
Lord FITZW I LLI AM spoke for some time against the Bill.
His voice was almost totally inaudible—we caught, however, as
oweit as convinced us he was in every respect against the mea-
sure. He expressed his surprise that the House should enter-
fain the idea of a divorce, when it had not been applied for by
either party—(Hear, hear).
Lord LIVERPOOL said, that as he had observed before, hf
was ready to give up the Clause relating to the Divorce, if ke
House thought it advisable to abandon that part of the measure.
lie contended against the argument that a Queen could not be
degraded without being divorced, and asked the House whether,
if a Queen committed a felony, she ought not to be degraded?
It would then be impossible to divorce her, as that punishment
was applic:able to adultery alone. It was also• untrue, that the
degradation of the Queen would operate in such a case to
degrade the King. His Lordship then, in adverting to rat
tranation, said, that innumerable calumnies had been circulated
against his Majesty, which it was improper in those to allude
to, who knew nut all the circumstances owned with both
sides of the question. It was known that twenty-four years
ago a separation took place which was sanctioned by the
King, and cenfirmed by Act of Parliament. Now, in some
minds a doubt existed whether, after so long a separa-
tion, the House could proceed to a total dissolution of the
marriage, lie admitted that such a doubt operated with him,
in the future course he was desirous to pursue. Ile was of opinion
that a clause should be introduced, ht place of'the clause of Di-
vlrce, confirming the separation, and calculated to prevent the
my/entente: which might arise from the situation of the Queen.
The LORD CHANCELLOR; said, that marriage was not,
;is Blackstone said, a mere civil contract. It was the parent,
and not the child, of sociOyie mrois et rei publics
funciaorentetn." It was altogether a civil contract with re-
spect to civil rights, and a religion* contract with respect to
14111061 ClO4. As to r4F4444110401 1144 not been 641 f