Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-10-06

t8NS Ssdtcu tbe .chciOi ObItSttO 10 Hlii.
OF Pains and Penalties, Ire would ventur.
TO say OF the present case, that the worst o.
former Bills, not excepting those OF Hen
~ The Eighth's wives, were regular Judi
cial acts, compared TO the one before thei
Lordship& He should assume thai moth
ing Illegal c1;!ld be laid TO her Majesty ;.
charge aud that he was bound TO assum,
from the face OF The proceeding itself
because, il any act had been commi,te.
IN violation Of any law, their Lordship.
would never have entertained the mea.
snre. And here he must be allowed "a
make one observation respecting another
mode of proceeding he considered, tlla
II no Illegal act had been done, impeach
ment was the mode for Trying what could
not he Indicted by law. He did not mean
10 contend that a person might not he
Impeached tor what was also too indicta-
BILE; what lie meant was that crimes may
he committed not cognizable by the
Courts below, but sill strictly cognizable
by their Lor'lships. He therefore thought
that something Of a reason should be
given TO shew why impeachment had moi
been resorted TO. In Siafford's case i'm
parchment was resOrted TO, aud The Bill
oil Aitainder was brought in pending The
proceedings on the impeachment, and il
was only when they apprehended that
the impeachment would fail, that they
adopted the aiiainder. The presen, was
he conceived, in the spirit of those pro-
ceedings. The actors in that injustice
were then OH the popular side, and their
successors III the present day now have
recourse TO similar measure, when they
foresee that impeachment would fail. Ii
The case were such as to make the pro
moters OF the Bill doubt of their lord :
ships entertain ny a charge of impeach-
mept, they might have laid their papers
and proofs before The other House OF Par
liamrnt a vote OF impeachment might
have been brought up, and their Lord
ships would doubtless have suffered il TO
go on. Indeed, as it was the privilege
ot tie Commons 10 impeach, i, might be
doubted whether their Lordships could
avoid entering on il. Had that step been
adopted, her Majesty's advisers would
have had specific charge, with such a
PECULIARLY OF detail as would have ena-
bled them 10 see on what points they
were called upou for defence and If not
allowed a list OF witnesses, they would have
had what would at least make the mea.
sure bear some resemblance TO Judicial
proceeding, which al present il did not !;
but he trusted thai it would at leas, re-
senhle .:ndielal proceeding III lis regard
10 substantial justice.
Another thing from which conclusion
might be drawn, thai the present was not
charge OF guilt, or The proceeding d in
dicial one, was this, that il the charge had
been of a something done for which The
party might be indicted, or even impeacli-
ed, he would be precluded from urging
amy thing on the expediency of The mca-
sue, because IN Courts Of Justice such
questions were wholly foreign to judicial
investigation but when il was question
OF legislation, OF a new law 10 be passed
he was Immediately let in 10 adduce every
argument tending 10 expose The imp0licy
or injustice of The proceeding The
Learned Counsel. in cnntinuaiiou, OBJ
served thai Inc could sbew from their Lord.
SHIPS proceedings. or rather from the
protests OF the vlriuous ninoriiies, that
such measures should never be resorfed
TO except from failure OF justice, or the
most absolute and pressing slate ueces-
sify. Without these exceptions nothing
could Justify such proceeding. The
Learned Counsel proceeded To read a
protest. WHICH amongst other Distinguish
ed names had that of The Lord Chan
ccllor Cowper signed 10 it, in which the
arguments he had Just urged on their
Lordships were corroborated aud sup
ported. Where then, he would ask, was
the imptliiDg necessity which alone could
justify the proceeding? Was The success
sion in jeopardy? Surprising that her
Majesty had been brought under The
operation of The statute OF Edward III.
from The peculiar circumstances, from
e ti,a 20
would be reasonable inference that no
danger could arise to the succession
yet as that would have been case of
he would have been bound
10 treat i, simply as question: of fact,
and could moi have argued from inferen-
css or probabilities but there he was
entitled to argue II as a law TO be made.
ant ~ trial under any existing statute.
III a shadow OF danger To the succession
could be shewD, then one only of his OBJ
IeciI0Ds would be removed.-There vas
another danger 10 the succession, which
was, where II was likely TO fail for want
ut a successor, but 10 that lie would not
cal their Lordships' attention. What
then was lie ground OF necessity here
stated Why, ii Was said, that the con.
duct oil her Majesty, from The station
winch she occupied, might degrade the
Ctow3 and the patton, and then an infer
ence Is drawn that The connection be
Tween her Majesty, lie Crown, and The
nation must be broken, because of such
conduct. On this lie would observe. first
of all. that the charge was for conduct
OF her Majesty before she was Queen,
when only the vile Of a SUBJECT, thoagh
bling The highest station in the realm.
gel but subject. Now observe how that
acted. II the Queen had been brought
here for an act whilst Princess, would
my mar have denied thai il was a Bill of
Divorce, aud must then have been had
On The ordinary terms; all The forms must
ibvc been duly complied wiih.-Tbe par.
y ff. ft,ass 4 -