Elizabeth-Town gazette. [volume] (Elizabeth-Town, N.J.) 1818-1821, 1820-10-03

t%HtcH dfEtsCu ~ ~ = .fs%Ne~f --
4 BrandenbHrg-hOuse. The people assem-
bled Ia the square greeted her with the
most enthusiastic cheers, the cIspping oil
hands, aud the waving Of hats aud hand
Ekerchiefs. Her majesty graciously ex-
pressed her gratitude by frequent molina
lions Of her head, and 90 alighting from
her travelling carriage, repeatedly bowed
Ito the assembled multitude.
i After the House Of Lords had been
organized, the Queen, attended BY Lady
Hamilton, and followed by her council,
Ieutered The House from the robing room.
Their Lordships rose and made an obei-
lsaoce. Her majesty took her seat in a
chsir prepared for her beside the steps Of
tine throne. Sic vas dressed III mot,Tu-
ling, with a white veil thrown over her
Ihead, which coseredsLer bust.
/ After some preliminary points Of Law
lbad been settled, Mr.. Brousham, the
lQueen's counsel came forward for the
purpose Of being heard generally against
| the principles Of the bill; but as be spoke
iaF great length, and IS MS introductory
remarks were less important Than those
Emade 10 fhe last hcdr OF his address, we
i hall omit them, with The exception Of a
Echarge brought by him against ministers
tof iostiutiug a preceding al this day,
(which would have been disgrace to the
reign of Henry VIII. After referring to
The precedent of Bishop AttefbYry, and
Esoticing the inference OF Law under the
statute OF Edward Ill. he went on to
contend that it vas impossible, 10 This in
stance, that the succession Of the throne
could be in the slightest danger from any
misconduct of the Queen. He insisted
THAT 30 case OF paramount necessity had
been established by ministers to warrant
them 10 Introducing bill contrary 10 all
law, precedent. and analogy. 1t had been
said that The Queens.coDdnct had tended
10 disgrace the crown and TO iDjsre the
country; but he Begged leave 10 ask,
whether the foundation OF the charges IN
the preamble Of The bill, if they existed al
all, bad not existed while the Qaeen was
Princess of Wales, aud merely the wife Of
a British subject. Why then was not the
measure introduced long ago Merely
because the Prince. Of Wales must have
sued 10 the ordinary manner for divorce
and must have come into the house with
clean hands. Especial care had been ia
ken to wait until heY Majesty, by her ex
altation, was deprived Of her private rights
aud remedies. This brought him TO i'm
plore their Iordsbips to pause at the
threshold. He put onr Of view, at present.
|all questions OF recriminaiion he had
raised il for bis present. argument only
and he should be most deeply afflicted II
in The further progress Of this i'll omened
subject, IL would be fsrcessasy for him
again to recar to ii. z should act icon
tinued he) directly in the teeth Of the in
siructions have received from this illus
tfious woman; should disobey her SOL
emn commands, ifsI had even used the
word recriminalion, without being driven
to 1t by absolute oyerrnliog necessity. Il
should also ACT in opposition to the same
command, if argued in another mode
that levity, indiscretion, or even criminal
intercourse, do not necessarily ininre the
honor of the crown or the character Of the
country. ISLANDERS against the Queen
have not been proved, but bruited aud
gossipped about the continent, and collect
ed with the utmost industry, while no such
Jealous watch was kept over the conducl
OF persons in the same illustrious family
at home. In the same way postpone all
matters previous to marriage. because
they are not absolutely bound in with this
dangerous and tremendous question. They
lare not Necessary 10 the safety Of my eli
Ie0t. II they weres an advocate knows
but one duty and cost what ii may,
whatever principalities, powers or do
Eminions he might offend, he is bound to
discharge it. When, however, il is said,
that indiscreet conduct, or improper "a
miliarity was fatal to The dignity Of the
crown, what answer can be given to the
statemeDt--lhat a licentious, disgracefnl,
/ and adnlterous intercourse, has been pro
lved against one member OF the royal fam
lily, without its being thought that the
honor OF the crowd, or the peace Of the
nation were involved in it. Are we ar
rived al that degreeof refinement 10 soci-
ety when things cannot be called by their
Iproper names, and when adultery 10 the
weaker sex is to be passed over as a We
Enial offence in the stronger. / appeal TO
the Justice Of the house, in its holiness
represented by the heads Of the church,
whether adultery is TO be considered al
4 crime only in woman. The exalted IN
ldividnal TO whose case now refer, had
Iconiessed the commission of the crime J;
and is the honor Of the crown less con
. nected with the purity Of prince than Of
a princess. This aIIusion is wrung from
me by necessity. ] acknowledge with
gratitude the obligations Of this country.