The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1821-01-09
g .ANRPPD :
INTER- ESTINs FORETGN N.EJTS

a ne question: was taken IN legislative rather
than IN judicial form - wa, upon The hfr1
reading Of the oil ofP,ms and Penalties. which
passed ~ the affirmative by z moiarity If 3 /;
The whole nnmher 10 ~, favour beng lO8 and
( against It 80: after Ills result was made Atown
! Lord Liverpool moved. substantially ertEndei
nIte posipouement 90 ine subject, when was
\ caris~>vilhout division This gave use to
Y exir< b4ut rejoicing throughout The country
( Ga The SIDE Of thUse who layoured The Oueen's
cause. Thi. triumph we take It, is principal
~, political tbr Pecp.e Do not rejoice %
much at Tue arqutlal Of the Queen, as al lie
\ defeat ~ the King and The disgrace or rninis
/ leFs. We du not view this result az subsian-
I iiating the innocence o. ner Majesty. nor lhsl
such "as the opinIon Of al The Peers who act
( 81 - htr favour, o. The contrary large ma
jorIty Of Inc House 81 Peers, much larger han
that hich supported Tie Lill, believe and have
( pronounced her guilty.
t.gh' Lords voted against tie biii, because they
thought u Inexped.ent proceed further IN :he
! measure but atet w them protest that ''en0ngh
! La- been proved w evidence Oh satisfy them of
4 ,he existence Of guir:" and rs Lords voted
on the same side, on the following grounds
Because The second reading Of tic bin il eqniv-
! silent 70 decision ha aduIterous intercourse
! las been satisfactorily proved :-Because that
adI.ierous intercourse has been inferred, hut
nol proved, and - . doubtful case, the bench.
| az that doubt, contoTma5ly 10 the principles 81
. Brush justice, must tie given 70 The defendant
Add these to he majority of in favour af
the bill aud you have a msjor;ty Of 81 who be-
I 10 % no G ~.
who 20 noi ayo" their opinion. IN edition
! 10 these Peers, the Archbishop 81 York and
the Bishops of Chester on1 Worcester voted
against The bill because of the Dsgorcc clause
which il contained the Archbishop Oh lhiy
subject remarked, thst as legislator he mus.
| oppose the bill, thorgh If he were required 10
decide jGd icialiy be must say Guilty" Lord
! Peterborough who voted against the bin, also
-aId, IL bis opinion were necessary, re would
| sYow that he coald not declare the Queen in
nocent. Lord .fogtord on the same side, de-
Clared that he had heard enough Of evidence
| 10 place him under The painful necessity OF
| saying guilty TO The charges, but topursue he
measure, would ID his opinion, be extremely
inexpedient
| When consider The tendency az these
declaration and the weight Of proof arising
! from these circumstances, we cannct on our
/ conscience, perceive any cause for triumph
On the part Of Queen, 50 far as regard the pu,
! rIty OF her character but il il truly and mere
| ly triumph ofpnl;Ics the wings and radicals
have prevailed By force Of popular Glamour
and excitement; tLe ministry found their ma
jjority too weak 70 resist it, and rather than
hazard The peace Of the county by persisiing
ID the measure and incur tie double disgrace
which would attend defeat in the House of
Commons, they pudeni,y ralipguisbed their
| OBJECT But tbs does not establish the inn0-
cence Of me Queen or give her much cause
oi triumph. The particulars Of the FnaI pro
ceedug and the rejoicings consequent upon
Il will be found under our foreign head
BY he same arrival we have also iniorma
ton, which aiay he relied upon, Of the ratifca-
ton Of the Florida treaty BY lhe Cortes
Spain seems To be advancing successfully.
in the course So happily commenced she
has passed laws 10 suppress the numerous
monastic establishments aud to appropriate
their estates; The Pope's Nuncio bad conse
qusntiy demanded bis passports aud was about
! leaving court
| The Con' ention Of members of The Holy
Alliance had assembled al Froppsu IN Slesia;
great events are anticipated from this meeting
I LORD Stewart represents Great Britain. The
affairs oG Italy, Spain and Portugal wsre IN.
/ derslood 10 be subjects of their deliberations.
e-s
Tins and sepsruF preceding papers hare eolfGiaed
able communications relating 10 the proceedings or
I Congress Oh me Missouri constitution, attich hare
giUea fair and Loid exposition orbe situation and
bsdrIg of that rsry interesting question lHh0ugh
sesc remarks hare been Of m9re than or3fnarv Ieneh
! tasy DO geH rtpay careful perHsGi and although
ihe iubiect has tosi Of lr nsrthy, the princi-
ples ohct It's discussion IS founded haze tst none
Of their mp0rtGaee 70 he honour and gelfare OF hc
union and theg particularly interesting 10 TIE
eiiissns Of ILaine, from former connection and
! from he Incarrapig5ie part portion Of her dele
cation ID Congress performed III me transaction I'VE
feel ind tied 70 cur correspondent FOR his eomunicc.
ti0ns & hope he pubic Fare real Them 10Th as much
interest and bsaeft as ourseiesss bal re think then
could BE- more generally read rad consequently be
1nore generally useful, fths mailer ir5fs HirOrBn
| tntO greater number IF esscys.
We also take peculiar pleasure in recommen-
ding 60 readers carefui attention Of the arti
css in our paper on The Judiciary they are writ
| ten BY master hand and the comparison fhev
4 Draw between the different systems If Judicial
Courts. seems q be with Discrimination. which
sound experience mud much practical information
alsue can ave. Fer ourselves we must Weld A.
sent 20 the doctrine be ably advocates. although
the plausible srguments on the other side Gre cel
suiaied "a have much ir1uencc with those, who A.
got familiar with Judicial proceedings.