The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-11 00:00:00

THE STATESNIN.

RE.IDING MEETING.

On Thursday a most numerous and respectable
meeting, consisting of about one thousand of the in-
habitants, took place in the Town-hall .1 to consider
of an Address of congratulation to her Majesty the
Quern un the abandonment, by the prosecutors them-
srlers, of their own Bill of Pains and Penalties
against her ; and also an Address to be presented to
his Majesty the King for the dismissal of the present
Ministers."

..........
Wm. Sterns:Ns, Esq., the Mayor, was called to the
chair by acclamation.
Jovsi BZRIMET Molitor, Esq., M. P., then came
forward, and, after some introductory observations,
said, the great majority of the whole people of the
I•tilteil Kingdom were well convinced that the pro-
cedings against her Majesty were inexpedient, none-
( essary, and uncoostitational.—((eat applause). He
bad never been able to discover, up to the present
boor, a single public ground—a single ground in
which the people had an interest for the adoption of
any proceedings at all against her Majesty. lie be-
lieved in his consch ace that the proceedings were
instituted merely to gratify a private feeling of disgust
a•iil resentment in a certain quarter, from which, of all
oth tat, accusations of adultery, and sermons about
ulnae Jity, purity, and the force of example, caiue with
the very worst grace—(Applause). In that quarter, at
least, it might have been expected that the humane
precept of our religion would have been scrupolously
attended to, " Judge not, that ye be not judged." When,
however, proceedings, were determined to be adopted,
why was it that his Majesty's ministers did not pro-
ceed by the regular constitutional mode of impeach-
ment, instead of having recourse to an ex-post facto
law ?—A bill of pains and penalties—a nieasnre that
never ought to be pursued bet in ease of absolote ne-
cessity, against some state delinquent, either absenting
himself from the country, or beyond the reach of the
ordinary laws ; and then ouly for the purpose of pre-
serving the constitution—of defending the rights of
the people; and never for the purpose, as in the pre-
sent case, of oppressing an individual who had never
done any wrong to the people—whose sole offence, if
any, was against her husband—a husband, too, who,
had done nothing to gain her affection, to deserve her
love; who, within three short weeks after marriage,
after a solemn vow to cherish and protect her, had
discharged her from his mansion ceaselessly, capri-
ciously, and had ever since treated her, not only with
neglect, but with the most ungenerous and unremit-
ting persecution.--(Cries of shame, shame.)--This
husband seems to have thought that he had sufficiently
fulfilled his engagement to hii consort, and his duty
to the public, in going through the forms of marriage,
and in securing to himself two solid advantages--the
payment of his debts, and a large increased establish-
ment. As there was no bishop among them to broach
a new doctrine of morality, be was not apprehensive
• •that any our there present would tell him that the
husband, be be prises or peasant, who bad acted thus.
• weld de DO wrong. At last, when the iniquitous and
awful proceedings were begun, it would be remembered
at what length Mr. AttorterOsserel opened the one
against the Queen, and that it was a tressodosi sass