The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-06-10 00:00:00

►MPSRIIIZ PARI,EIMENT.

nor or tottrol—T ur SD AT, t 9.

.
"Fir S..tatuel Ruudßy and Mr. liargreee,teefore a Committee
or Priviieirtswere be,,d ou the part of the Pentium claulda .
the Baubary Preraze, whea it w.is ur,reed that the om. i a
tf Ow Judges aimed be taken upou the wihaisailißity of t. e
etitleaze promised to be adduced, mid the furtl er pruce.d-
is_+were pustpanc.l tdl net Thursday.
::,rest privute ihils were reed • *frond, and others a
third t...ur.
The Irish Ulebe• House Bill, and the Orders i. Count
Vdrediouse Bill, were real a second time.

libANltti DIVORCE BILL,
The Loan CRANCELI.OII rose tar the purpose of
stating those reasons 10 the House which induced
Lim to propose that. their Lordships should reject
this Bill. Evidence had been given at the lair of
that House, to which it wiss necessary for hint to
advert, in order that it might be pa:.iriely known
up hut groauds he made the present motion.
dcuist could possibly reinuin of adultery having
been committed by Mrs. Bland. r But it was ins
I:utabelit upon him, before he came to another
part of the evidence, which indured him to think
that this Bill ought to be rejected, to make a few
observations upon the allegation which hail been
anode at the bar fer the purpose of preveuting tins
divorce taking place ; and lie should wake these
l'ltuerratiens in justice to the chars:ter of Mr.
Bland. It appeared in evidence, that Mr. Bland
seas married to Mrs. Mead in the year 1741.1, and
at that.time he expressed his purpose of esigeging
is the profession of the law. In the following yeur
it would be fauna that Mr. Bland had come orer
tram behind, and• was in Loudon attentliug his
terms in the Temple; and in the same year he was
contii.cji withilithe Kin's Bench Prison. About
ths same time, Mrs. Bland was delivered of a
child ; and it had been a painful discharge of his
duty, and of that of the House, to viand attend to the
evidence intended to support the allegation *already
alluded to respeeting the state-of this child and its
mother. It was stated that the child was infected
with a certain disease at the time of its hire],
and that this infection had been coinnsuni-
gated by the mother ; and it was further in-
tentled to shew, by implication, that the mo-
ther must have derived her contamination from
the father. ,This disease destroyed the child's
health, and soon niter brought on its premature
death. However disagreeable it alight be to him
to hose limuld this statement at the nine, and now
to recaintoluste it. slill, So justice to the character
of Mr. Blom], as to this part of the evidence, he
aunt Says that the allegation had not been mule
oat by air degree of probable proof. The testi-
of asveral medical mess had been adduced,
but it did not support the position. that dais dis-
ease must have originated in Mr. Bland. Doctor
Erskine's evidence went to shew, that he had been
to the habit of attending upon Mrs. Bland and her
child at that time, sad no attempt had been made
to impeach the Veracity of this professioual
Nal". no hi • .nleinn oath, declared, that it was im-
possible for 'lrv. Plaucl to haw, had this, disease,
and he pest have known it, and he saw certain
she was thi .i free Erma all contagion of this sort.
Another medical man, oldie name of 'fhomita, had
been eastii awl, and such was his regard to a con-
acieutious declaration of his opinion, that he had
expressed great doubt upon Isis competency to
speak deciiled I y,but bis evidence, as far as it amount-
ad to any thing positive, went to corroborate the
opinion of Dcetor Erskine. There could have been
no difsculty fur Mrs. Bland, supporting this allega-
tion, to have proved it, if she had at that trine been
,infected with this disease. She must have had
coins Imola-al man, to whom she would disclose the
. stature of her complaint. and a person of the mune
of Cropley lied been mentioned ; but when Mi.
man had been 'found, and came to their Lorclships'l
liar, his cvialcnce ngreed with that which Doctor
Erskine had before stated. it appeared that the
wnrse of the child was afflicted with disease at the
time, and that, together with the rest of the testi-
Stony, co-itradicted the allegation, that the infec-
tion which pi:mit:cc:4 the lad of the child's health,
and afters/Wads of its egistencr, was comanuisicated
in the way described. These were the obilervauons
which he thought proper to make in justice to Mr.
Bland's ehareeter. In the year 17oti, Mr. Bleed
left this couutry, and was abroad front that period,
till ahem the year MO, and the proof of Mrs.
Thantri Inivlng had children, during his absence,
was completely satisfactory to shewi that she had
committed adultery. Upon hisreturn en action had
loon brought' against the seducer, a verdict of
3001. damages was obtained, and emeution of the
judgment founded upon this verdict was duly
levied. His Lordship mentioned this for the pur-
pose of 'hewing, that, in his opinion, there was no
meson to suspect there had becn, in this trans.
action, any -coitus:no bet Ween the parties. which
*ow sometimes the ease, with the intent of ground--
in;, future proceedings in a Bill of Divorce. After
having made these observations, be thought pro-
per to inention that part of Mr. Bland's conduct
which ought to induce that House to reject the
present Bill. It was an act of favour on the part
of their Lordshiln, to grant divorces when they
slight beconvineest of their propriety, and as there
WSW no law to direct, it would be always in their
d'oreretion not to interfere, when the conduct of
either party applying warranted such n determi-
nation. The evidence of Mr. Bland's having,
during his confinement in the King's Bench pri-
son, committed acts of ad:literyy with a %so-
num whose name was Mitchell, did not en-
title his application to that relief, which might
properly he granted in other cases. This wenn:in.
walled could not be found to give her
testimony before that House, but there was a
cii:rgyinen, who had also been confined for debt,
is the same prisms with Mr. Bland, arid this gen-
tlemen hail delivered his evidence. He could not
prove any instinct act of adultery, bad he had sworn
that he had seen Mr. Bland and this woman living
is an open and habitual state of adultery, and
that be lived with her ur hi 4 calling her by
the title of Mrs. 11131141. His Lordsliiii trusted,
twist the House would :r free with him, that it was
extremely incumbent that those who apply for
redress, should (to use the expression coMmonly
styrJe in the Courts frelmel come before them riih
dean howl.. But while Mr. Bland emlentelieed to
release itimself :from his marriage, by proving his.
wife's adultery, he himself was guilty of the same
kitli of coadact, by living its yen prostitution