1230 and happiness was owing. There might to a subject of the first importance to possibly be a solitary instance of some both. He complimented the illustrious collusion between the parties; but he duke on the honourable and eloquent must have the fact better established, that manner in which he had stated his reasons it had frequently been the case, before he for objecting to the bill, and rejoiced to could bring himself to give it credit. He hear from his royal highness, that he was a could easily believe that divorces by the firm advocate for the religious principles legislature increased the number of of the Church of England, and for the adulteries. When a divorce was obtained morality of the people, as well as a by an act of the legislature, as the matter detester of the foul crime of adultery. stood at present, it was open to the man His lordship said, he had taken upon who had been the instrument of the himself to come forward thus early in the crime with the wife, to make the best debate, because he had a better opportuamends in his power, by marrying her. nity of witnessing the increasing number But, looking at the case as a man of the of divorces than many other persons, world, he could not shut his eye to the since a great proportion of them originated pretty generally known fact, that the in his own consistorial court. In a very husband who, by suing for pecuniary short period the number had increased to damages, obtained a verdict, was consi- | 198; and unless some means were dered not as a very honourable man, if resorted to by the legislature to check when he received them, he put them in their progress, the number in a few years his own pocket, instead of returning them would be so great, that it could not but to the purse of the defendant. The royal undermine the best props and securities duke compared the general effect of of society. That the present bill was all punishments with the crimes to which that was requisite to stop the fatal career they were applied. He instanced the of the crime of adultery, was more than cases of treason, rebellion, mutiny, and | could be expected ; but it would do good desertion, in opposition to those of a baser to a certain extent; and until something nature, such as murder, robbery, burglary | more effectual should be proposed, it was and other felonies, contending, that in worthy of cordial support. each, in proportion as the punishment was rendered capital and severe, the crime rather increased than diminished. Mutiny, as a military offence, was parallel to rebellion, considered as a political and civil crime; but, increasing the severity of the punishment of desertion had not tended to check its frequency. To prove the inefficacy of capital punishments in cases of desertion, he need only instance when the duke de Choiseul was the French minister, in the war before the peace of 1763, an edict was issued, subjecting every deserter to be shot. Yet it was notorious that during this severe edict, there were more deserters than ever. He imputed many of the late divorces to the accidental effect of the war, which detained officers of the army and navy for a long time from their wives; but when peace should arrive, that effect would cease, and he had no doubt that applications for divorce bills would then diminish. His royal highness concluded with moving "That the said bill be read a second time on this day four months." The Bishop of London addressed himself to the House, as guardians of the religion and morality of the country, and earnest ly entreated them to pay due attention | The Earl of Guilford said, that every noble lord must deeply lament the prevalence of the crime of adultery; he could not, however, agree that the number of divorce bills was an infallible proof of the increase of adultery; on the contrary, it might be contended for as an argument the other way. Nor could he admit, that the morals of the people of this country were more vicious than those of antecedent periods. That divorce bills, by their number, established that fact, no man would agree, who looked back to what had been the case in France under the old government. It was well known that, during the monarchy no divorce was obtainable; and would any nan deny that the crime of adultery was less frequent there, than it had been in Great Britain since the legislature had consented to grant divorce bills? He doubted, if the proposed bill were to pass, whether it would have any tendency to prevent the crime of adultery; though it was undeniable that it would operate as a merciless punishment upon the unfortunate female, who had sacrificed her honour. But surely the House would not adopt a remedy for a most crying evil, without some greater certainty of its being likely ተ to be efficacious, than could be proved to be the case of the bill under consideration. The Bishop of Durham said, that nothing could be more self evident, than that the rapidly increasing crime of adultery, threatened the most serious consequences to the morality and religion of the people of this country. That the proposed bill would not operate to the full extent of all that was desired, was a fact to be lamented; but would noble lords therefore refuse a measure calculated to operate as some check to its progress, because it did not promise to answer the whole of the wished-for purpose? Let but the present bill pass, and he would ask their lordships, whether they did not believe a woman would be more cautious than before in encouraging any man in his attempt upon her virtue? If, misled by an unhappy and unlawful passion, she once passed the rubicon, she would be taught that she could not repass it, that she could not patch up her reputation by marrying her paramour. In regard to what had fallen from the royal duke, that the woman would be driven to prostitution and vicious courses for a live cod, it by no means followed as a necessary consequence. When she had manifested her contrition and repentance, she might marry again, and be restored to society; for though the bill interdicted her intermarrying with the adulterer, it left her at liberty to marry any other person. The ratio in which divorces had multiplied of late years would be seen from the fact, that from the reign of Henry the 8th down to the present king, not more than thirty or forty parliamentary divorces were obtained; whereas, during the present reign, no fewer than ninety-eight had taken place. Let the example afforded to the rising generation be considered, and the legislature must feel the imperious necessity of taking every possible step to avert the evil. With respect to the morals of the country, he must consider the evil complained of as a strong proof of their becoming worse; and among the chief cause of this was to be classed the promulgation of those principles by some of the most celebrated teachers of the school of infidelity, which inculcated that adultery was no crime, and which endeavour to bring the marriage contract into disrepute. Lord Mulgrave commented on what had fallen from the noble introducer of the bill on a former evening, particularly on the historical facts to which he had alluded, and his applications thereof to the occurrences of the present times. The applications, he argued, were ill founded, and the chain of the noble lord's reasoning, as deduced from the whole, erroneous. Whatever might be the comparative number of divorces in the present and in those times, they afforded no proof of their comparative morality, or the frequency of the crime of adultery. He animadverted upon the ill policy of too severe legislative restrictions in these cases, and instanced the act of 1650, (during the usurpation), by which adul tery was rendered a capital offence. This act was, not long after the Restoration, repealed, and in that period they ran into the opposite extreme. Divorces were almost unknown, yet that reign was proverbial for its licentiousness and immorality; and indeed from that period down to the commencement of the eighteenth century, the morals of the country, in respect to these things, were not much improved. With regard to the law of Scotland, the fact proved nothing, except the noble lord could at the same time prove that the crime of adultery was less frequent there than in England, as the consideration of adultery, and not of divorce, was the grand object. In regard to the idea of its being the existing law of this country that the woman should not marry after being divorced, he conceived it to be erroneous; as, when the marriage was annulled, there was no legal tie on the conduct of either party in that respect. Noble lords appeared to think that the bill, by enacting a prohibition against the parties marrying, would effectually prevent seduction. They knew little of human nature, who thought this. The bill would only add to the dexterity of the libertine; it would not act as a discouragement to pursue the vice. Here his lordship dwelt with much eloquence on the miserable and unprotected condition of a female, who, if the bill should pass, instead of being, as formerly, at liberty to marry her seducer, would be placed in a situation of ignominy too humiliating for any mind, but most of all a woman of education, and whose place had always been in the first circles of society. The offspring of her illicit connexion too, would be treated with cruelty; that offspring which partook not of the crime of its parents, but which would suffer for it, if the present measure should be adopted. I these same "men of honour," who, inHere the noble earl made several general stead of being received into the graces of observations on the conduct of the parties; the fair, ought to be consigned to public adding, that much and heartily as he de- infamy; for he would ask, was it fit that plored the existence of the vice, yet as there this country should remain in its present were he believed some who, imprudent situation in this particular? He was in the first instance, would make the un- shocked to hear, that these "men of fortunate female that only reparation honour," who agreed to a divorce, rewhich she could receive for violated virtue, turned the damages that had been given. namely, the marrying her, he must think But if this were so, he would ask the a measure which could deny her that al. House, whether this practice ought to ternative, which was to give poignancy to continue? The act of adultery was at presorrow, and not to render penitence per- sent, by law, only a civil trespass, and manent, would be as cruel as impolitic. for which only damages could be given as a "satisfaction," as some persons called Lord Eldon thought it his duty to discuss the subject now before their lord-it: but he had not the mind of a man to ships, with a view, not of determining whether this measure would be sufficient wholly to prevent the most enormous crime in this country, but whether it would have a tendency to diminish that evil. It was impossible to look at the crime of adultery without feeling the necessity of showing an abhorrence of it. It had been stated, that adultery had been increased by what was called a contract, that there should be a marriage between the delinquent parties, in case a divorce should follow their guilty intercourse. Now, he was not enough a man of the world to know much of this sort of contract; he had not sufficient acquaintance with the progress of these "honourable" men who commit adultery, to know much of the validity of these contracts: this he knew, however, that although there could be no such formal contract, because the law knew of no such thing, yet a simple and silly woman might act on the opinion of there being such a contract, and that might be one of the terms on which she surrendered her virtue. Now that she was told, by this bill, that she was to be prevented from marrying her paramour, her understanding would be improved upon that subject. For what was the English of all this cant about the honourable engagement of an adulterer, but that there existed an idea in the minds of women, that if they committed adultery, marriage with the paramour would be the consequence of it? It was a vain thing for a man like him, to speculate on what was the opinion of these men of honour on the subject of adultery; but it was not a vain thing for that House to take upon itself the task of protecting virtue. One way to do so, was to enable females to be on their guard, as far as law could put them on their guard, against the attacks of whom civil damages could give satisfaction for such an injury; for it was a crime which not only robbed the husband of his comfort, the wife of her honour, the family of their credit, but innocent children of the invaluable blessings of a good education and virtuous example. Upon these topics he knew he was speaking the sentiments of the learned lord, who, so much to the public benefit and his own credit, was chief justice of England, and whose unavoidable absence he lamented on this occasion. That learned person had often delivered to juries his opinion upon adultery. However, the legislature had told him, that, whatever his wishes might be upon the subject of adultery, we must only lay down the law as a question of damages. Juries saw the evil of the progress of adultery in its true light; they were not wanting in their attempts to suppress it; they did all that the law allowed them to do in this case; and now their lordships would give him leave to ask them, whether it was right that in the House of Lords, the co-operation to suppress this vice should be wanting? But, was a helpless woman to be abandoned? If he were to answer that question from his heart, it would be an easy answer: but the answer of a legislator must come from the head; because judgment and considerations of justice were to guide the policy of the law, and not private feelings. In that point of view, it was punishment and correction, and not lenity and compassion, that were to be applied to the case of a woman who had committed adultery. Suppose a poor helpless girl was robbed of her innocence, what would a private man say? Why, that he was very sorry for it; but what did the law say? That she was to be regarded as a prostitute-Why? that others should be deterred from following her example. The Earl of Carnarvon supported the bill, and showed, that instead of producing the effects lord Mulgrave supposed on the man of honour who might be inclined to attempt the chastity of a woman of virtue, it would deter him from it, and induce him to repel his own inclination to do her such an injury, from a consciousness that he had it not in his power to make her any possible amends. The Bishop of Rochester defended the bill. He referred to the former practice of punishing adultery with death; and said, that although he loathed and held in utter abhorrence every thing that passed in the time of the Commonwealth, yet the law which prevailed in that time was not peculiar to it; it was the law in much more ancient times, as history showed it was the law during all Pagan time; it was the law of the Hebrews, although in the latter periods of the Jewish history it was neglected, and some fashionable Hebrew ladies broke through it; it was the law also in the best and purest days of Rome. His lordship referred to the Julian law, and read certain passages from the reformatio legum, to prove his assertions, and to show in what light, even in the most luxurious and depraved periods of the Roman empire, that man was considered who condescended to marry an adultress. He asserted, that the last thirty years of the last century, notwithstanding the gallantries of the loose court of Charles 2nd, were pure times compared with the present, in respect to adultery and divorce. He was by no means for restoring the punishment of adultery by death; but the Scripture, in one part, sanctioned that doctrine; though in another it allowed, that in some cases a man might put away his wife. But in the Scripture were to be found strong arguments for never unloosing the marriage Vow. Lord Grenville supported the bill; and said, that lord Mulgrave must forgive him for thinking, that his arguments that day savoured somewhat of the new morality. He thought the arguments used on the ground of appeal to the compassion of the legislature in favour of the adulteress, would equally apply in favour of the perpetrators of crimes of the most vile description. The Lord Chancellor commented upon the turn the debate had taken, and the different species of reasoning that had been used. Its first character had been a declaration, that every noble lord ab. horred adultery, and would join in every measure that would repel it, but that the present bill did not go far enough. Was that a fit reason for resisting a bill going to a committee, that might possibly be amended, and would at least serve as some check to the crime of adultery? The next character of the debate was, an appeal to the compassion of the House in favour of a guilty party: such reasoning was every way unfit for a branch of the legislature, whose first duty it was to support virtue and discourage vice, in stern defiance of the force of the amiable private feelings of the human breast. The question being put, that the bill be now read a second time, the House divided: Contents 30, Not-Contents 11. May 16. The order of the day being read for committing the bill, Lord Auckland said, that the bill which he had lately introduced for the more effectual prevention of adultery, having been found very defective, it was his intention to abandon it, in order to introduce another bill that should be more effectual; he would at present move, to have this new bill read a first time, and afterwards printed. It was a bill "for the Punishment and more effectual Prevention of the Crime of Adultery." It differed from the former bill by having a new clause, to make persons guilty of adultery liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment, as in cases of misde meanour. The bill was read a first time. On the motion, that it be printed, The Earl of Moira contended, that the bill went to make a very material alteration in the law, namely, in rendering that which was now a civil process subject to a criminal indictment. But his chief objection was, to the provision which went to disable the woman from marrying the person on whose account she was divorced. On the cruelty of such a clause, his lordship expatiated at some length, observing, that the seducer unshackled by it. The husband was also left unshackled, and the whole penalty fell upon the unfortunate victim of seduction. It was adding mockery to cruelty, to permit a woman of such description to marry any man except her seducer; for who else would have her? was left It was false to say that no punishment | voured to show that there was a Jewish already attached to the crime. Every bill of divorce, in later periods, much woman who violated her conjugal vows superior to that Christian bill of divorce lost her reputation, the esteem of her the demerits of which he forcibly pointed friends, and of the world, and never could out. The Jewish bill was copied always raise herself to the rank from which she verbatim by a public notary, and ran had fallen. The severity with which it thus towards the conclusion: "Now was now proposed to pursue her, was I divorce thee, dismiss thee, and cast thee contrary to the spirit of our laws. The out, that thou mayest be free, and have distinction between murder and man- the rule of thyself, to depart, and to marry slaughter was founded on the indulgence with any other man whom thou wilt; and due to the impulse of passion, and the let no man be refused by thee for me, from other frailties of human nature. Was this day forward, for ever! Thus be thou then, no allowance to be made for female lawful for any man. And this shall weakness, blinded by passion, and assailed be to thee from me a bill of separation, by all the arts of seduction? To shut the a bill of divorce, and a letter of dis door against such a woman, and prevent mission, according to the law of Moses her attaining, by amendment and contri- and Israel." By the law of Moses and tion, any comfortable place in society, Israel, therefore, women were allowed to was to question the wisdom of the consti- marry again: and as the seducer is not tution, which gave mercy to the crown to mentioned as being precluded from giving pardon the most wicked offences; and he his hand to the too yielding fair one whom would appeal to the reverend prelates, he robbed of her virtue, it was but candid whether it was not also contrary to the to suppose that, by the above divorce mild spirit of the Christian religion? On bill, she was free to marry her seducer if these grounds, therefore, he moved "That she pleased. Nay, about the time of our the bill be rejected." Saviour it was a custom among the Roman ladies, as well as the Jewish, to divorce their husbands, and to marry again at pleasure. The bill tendered by the Roman ladies was called letters of forsaking : and, to make it clear that the same practice was in use at that time among the Jews, the women having then acquired a greater portion of freedom, our Saviour (Mark x. 12) says, "If a woman put away her husband, and be married to another, &c." The Jews were very delicate about bringing the proofs of the cause of divorce before a judge; for in so doing, they said, the honour of the one, or of both the parties is hazarded. It was enough for the judge to see the special points upon which the husband grounded his divorce, and this was his sentence: that he purely and simply divorced her, without any cause showing; giving them both leave to marry whom they should see good." By this the woman was not dishonoured. nor the errors of the man exposed. Lord Eldon deprecated the rejection of the bill, because he was certain, that nine out of every ten cases of adultery that came into the courts below, or to that bar, were founded in the most infamous collusion, and that, as the law stood, it was a farce and a mockery, most of the cases being previously settled in some room in the city; and that juries were called to give exemplary damages, which damages were never paid, nor expected to be paid by the injured husband. It was equally a farce and a mockery to bring them up to their lordships bar, because the parties took care not to produce the piece of parchment that had been executed between them, or to let the House know one word of the matter; for they were aware that, if they did, the divorce would not be granted. It was impossible to suffer the law to remain in the shameful state in which it at present stood. The Duke of Clarence discussed in succession the various topics drawn into debate by the noble lords who supported the bill. He recurred to the proceedings on the former bill, and examined the arguments and authorities adduced by the bishop of Rochester, on a late discussion in support of the bill. He owned that an adultress, by the Mosaic law, was to be stoned to death; but he likewise endea He then pointed out the customs of the Greeks and Romans, in cases of divorce and showed that the marriage and divorce laws of these nations were in a great measure borrowed from the laws of the Jews. The Athenians admitted, he said no divorcement, except the cause were first proved before the judges; and that people like the Jews, deemed it a matter of great delicacy and hazard to the |