The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

911 re..

E-. war I 111 a.or that he a 'tithed to subject her Ma-
e•ty to th,. da.i. ,r of suffering the penalties of that
stature, a I.ieo e, re at variance with the humane spirit
. the times. 'I hone penalties he won't( propose to
r rad, aft* the pAtest evert bothe would give her
t ajoety all The benefits of a trial under the Statute.
t ; r of Ishielt would las, that she should have a list of
teswitnease'• But rf, &Fee all, no proceeding was-
tend possible but that by Bill'of Pains and Penalties,
e would then feel it his duty, however painful, to
act jai' i dly.being firmly persuaded, that sul.stantial
jt Mice would be done to all parties by their Lord-
ship-. Though be believed that their Lordahips were
kthact:lnes mistaken in politics, yet he did not believe
that they would ever refuse to do justice. He said
thus much, as he did not wish to give any encourage-
trent to such charges as were made, believing that in
I very case pure substantial justice would be achnini-
!treed at theit Lordships hands.—(Hear, hear).—flat
if they proceeded without satisfying the doubt' which
he felt, he would support the motion of his Noble
Friend.
The Lord CHANCFLI.OR said, that he felt an anxiety
ta explain his notion of the law on the subject, and
ebsTrved, that the Noble Lord furry) appeared to be
a notch better lawyer himself than he was willing to
tike Malt for. He had given his opinion before,
that rite act, whether committed abroad with' a fo
reigner, or with a foreigner at home, all the objections
against constructive treason applied more forcibly to
sechasese than to any other. Ile entertained con-
siderable doubt, whether the doctrine laid down by
ire text writers was correct. He could with great
truth declare, with the Noble Lord, that be was now
exercising A most painful duty, but he would also tle-
deco with hint, that, hoWever painful the task, he felt
that be ought not toJecline it. But suppose the law
tv be as the Noble Lord hail described it. could they
- say she bad committed the crime of High Treason.
when the person with whom she was represented to
have committed it had been guilty of no such crime ?
The thing to which she was accessary mast be a 1
crime; but if it was not such a crime in the man. there
.roust be at least a doubt whether it could be such in 1
the person who consented. (Wefts the fact on the '
Part of the violator was treason, it could not be treason
A the accessary.
The Earl of LlVltitroot. admitted that nothing cont.!,'
be more fair or candid, than the whole statement of
Noble Earl who had spoken last but one. Ile conent- 1
red perfectly in the sentiment which he hail introduced I
1t the close of his speech. if the question was WWII at
the be- would be, be was sure that I
feel that he was sitting in a
a case with which no politi-
' be permitted to interfere.—
11 feel that no one, however I
im, should be hound to cda- '
in the question than that
. character and conscience as
The period for the Noble Lord
made such objections as he had
before the secood reatline of the
He had stated that the Bill oueht
,r. The present was not the
t of his Majesty flovernment, 1
he should feel no difficulty
pursued by himself and his
now was, what was best to
public tranquillity, to their
. the . ions Individual, and towards
_ country at large : . assumed, fur the take of ar-
gument, that thecharges were true, and that they could
be proved; but he had never attempted to conceal that,
even with that assumption, it would be better to hare i
avoided any proceeding, if that could hr done. in his 1
opinion it might have been avoided had her Majesty
remained abroad, bat be felt no shame in acknowledg-
, inatbat from the moment she came to this country,
iv gut up that opinion. On the arrival of her Ma-
jesty in ,Bagiaad,Uovernment must have done one of
two tbings—either they must have acknowledged her
.4141 Queen, with all the rights and privileges of her si-
tuation, or they must have entered int , the question
sow before the House. Under these circumstances
. the Bill, was brought in, and that day was Axed fur
. the woad reading, in order to afford an opportunity
for hearing counsel and evidence in.f.tvour and against
4, 11 they mild clearly see their way to any other
comnonf proceeding!' which was preferable. they 'night
r:gret what they had begun ; but, unless that was the
meet he moteld submit that no good purpose could be
enure/ by interrupting a proceedipg which promised
the mss speedy termination, and was in every respect
• adequate to the ends of impartial justice. He was
sot disposed to differ from either of the Noble Earle
V SO *sir opinions respecting Bills of Pains and Pe-
naltim.,. If there could be s clear course of trial, it
wombiglopreferable to such proceedings—but, if there
seta ceer-thimg in the legal argutnent, all proceedings
nsigibielms .greyed by a mere technical objection.
- —.Do onontwits, under all the cirentnitadeek the At
.t Potollt-ht adopt. There was, in fact, ouly that and
/opeashonnt, and this difficulty presented itself in
. .11sa latter course, that, if adultery INas not a high
- o mime aed misdemeanor by the law of the land, an
.. impeachment could not be conducted. Suppose, then,
• that tho qpietino was referred to the Judges, aid that
, the wow of those Learned Persons denied it to be a
.11-Itigit aisle end misdemeanor, it was true that their I
Lactinition snight, as in the case of Dr. Sacheyerel, de- I
sift wa r the opinion of the Judges, but still the
!
aftent.snant be prejudiced in some measure by that
.0044. , Every one ofthe arguments which had been
evil opient the mode of proceeding in general would
qpiply ce every case of divorce that was brought before
thelckoed,sbips. In ail those cases what had they
1 .;Tbtre had unfortunately been cases in which ;
FA
wive of Members of that House had been f
Nested, and bad thereby lest their rank and privi-
lege*. .What bad their Lordships done in those
cases?. Had they not degraded the wires, had
they pot indicted as great a punishment, allow-
ance Wag made for the imparlty of the situation
of the Quaes and of those Ladies, as it was how I
priposed $o Indict ? in those cases, indeed, the
flouts denmsdisi the fullest proof of the fiat of
adultery,/ and is this case, he ousted, they would
. not poccesd to pass the Bill without equally Mang
proof. Was not every Divorce Bill an e.r poet nerd
law ? It was nut the law of the land, that a woman
- should be divorced even for adultery ; for though the

the bar, as lie hoped it 14
emry Noble Lord would fe
j.rdicial capacity, and on a
cal bins whatsoever should
For his own part he should
cioißely connected with bin
side, any other interest i
which he owed to his own
a. tsar mid as a Nan. Thi
(Cunrscenn) to have made
„leg day, yas bettm
lit been fired. He has
to be got rti of altogether
time 4o review the conduct
but when the time arrived
in vindicating the course
colleagues. The question
be done with a view to the
ditty towards the Illustrior
. the country at large ? He