The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-06-18 00:00:00

•
on tile whole, be better if no Bill of the kind were
ever passed. With rasped totresent chse, he
must say, it tthibited an instance of the gtossest
infidelh 4 it WA not a single aft from a tudden
impelse of the Pa:sions, but a deliberate abandon-
donment of a well-deserving woman, and a taking
of a strumpet lo his arms, in which he persevered
&my years. However. to consider the subjeft no
general, and on public grounds, there might be
something peculiarly strong and stiking in a case of
this kind, to induce the Legislature to assent to the
prayer of the petition. The case of Mrs. Addison,
referred to by the Learned Counsel, was one totally
distinct from that under consideration. In that case
it was really a moral impossibility that the parties
could come together ; as it was proved that the
husband bad an adalterous intercourse with his
wife's own sister. Nay. farther, the wife herself
would be guilty of incest, if she returned to her
husband. Mere was nothing. of that kind to in-
duce a moral impossibility in the present case 7--
nothing but a ttrong degree of inference. They
could tint, consistently with a most important duty,
consent to relieve the petitioner in the way proposed.
However, he had to observe, he could not under-
stand how the lady's circumstances could be im-
proved by a dissolution of the marriage. which
would involve a loss of the alimony. Upon the
whole, the Learned Prelate's opinion of the ease
WAS such, as to induce him to move, that, instead
of " Now." " the Bill should be read a second time
that day three months."
The Earl of CA RNARVON expressed his dissent
from the opinion of the Learned Prelate, that their
Lordships passing such a Bill'as that tinder consider-
ation would operate injuriously upon the public
morals. Neither was he aware of any law, or any
rule of that House, which precluded a woman from
addressing the Legislature, and obtaining relief, as
well as a man, if the particular merits of the case
entitled her to it. He thought the circumstances of
the case under consideration ought to induce their
Lordships to assent to the Bill. He would ask the
Reverend Prelate. whether it was necessary to the
public morals, that the husband of the Lady
in qUeltion should be suffered to do every thing
that could disgrace her, and deprive her of the
comforts of lice? Whether it was necessary, for
the sake of good morals, that the Lady should
be driven to seek relief at the door of a profli-
gate, who had robbed her of her husband's af-
fections, and diminished his pteans of maintaining
her. After dwelling shortly nn these topics, with
some degree of warmth and feeling, his Lordship
proceeded to the consideration of certain Canonical
Laws, and Ecclesiastical regulations, Which bore
upon the subjen, particularly a Canon of the
year 1603, which he argued was not biuding upon
the laity, nor upon the clergy, farther than they
thought proper, and that divorces were permitted
by the Divit e Law. He then recurred to the sub-'
ka of the Bill, and adverted to the reduced circum-
stances of the Lady's husband, which must affect 1
the payment of the alimony, and argued for the
passing of the Bill, which would enable the peti-
tioner to separate herself from an unworthy hus-
band. He was not apprehensitte of the Bill's getting
a dangerous precedent, as every case would natu-
rally rest upon its own particular merits, and be ac-
cided upon by their Lordships accordingly.
The Bishop of Sr. ASAPIS and the Earl of Celt-
N•avost severally explained.
Lord HAW K ESBU RY concurred with the Rev.
Prelate, in a great deal of what he said upon the
general subject. He observed, that no precedent
whatever obtained, of a Bill being
.granted upon
the application of a woman, except in the case of
Mrs. Addison, the circumstances of which were not
in the least applicable to the present CA,C. In the
one instance, a reconciliation between the parties
was totally out of the question ; in the present,
it was merely improbable. A material distinc-
tion appeared throughout. Rut the general ques-
tion involved considerations which were to be
contemplated with a reference to their effects upon
society ; a distinet rule au.l principle, with respeCt
to such cases. hitherto obtained : were this to be
broken in upon, it would be difficult in future cases
to draw the line. The very good nature of some
individual Peers would induce them to grant, with-
out sufficient discrimination, that which, in the
views he referred to, would eventually be detri-
mental and injurious.
Lord AUCKLAND made a few general obser-
vations in favour of what fell from te Rev. Pre-
late, and the Noble Secretai yof State. It was a
point upon which he seemed to have made up Isis
mind, and he perticulerly adverted to the serious
importance of the question, with reference to its
setting a precedent for future applications.
The LORD CHANCELLOR adverted to what
he had stated on a former evening, namely his ap-
prehension, that he should feel it his painful duty to
give a negative to the farther progress of the null,
unless the Counsel in support of the measure could
alter the opinion he thee entertained, and that he
thought the best way of giving. notice on the occa-
sion. With re-pea to the particular case, he never
recollefted to hear a more favourable representation
given of :my woman. But yet, on those general
grounds of public morality, which had been so ably
adverted to by those Noble Lords who had preceded
him, he must. proceed with resped to his assent to
the Bill. With regard to the case of Mrs. Addison,
which had been referred to, it was as distils& from
that under consideration, as any case could be, and
yet, even that case, in its efre.es without doors, had
produced considerable mischief, as any of their Lord-
ships would perceive, should they take the trouble
to look at certain trials. With respen to particular
parts of the allegations on the part of the Petitioner,
there were still open different modes of redness
tin& from that of divorce, arid which could be re-
curred to. As to the question before the House,
upon those great and leading principles to which he
had referred, and the corm:bon he felt as to the
probable, nay almost certain injurious effeas of
trenching upon them, he felt it his painful duty to
give a negative to the original Motion.
The House then divided ; when there appeared
for the Bishop of St. Asaph's Amendment 10—
Against it 7—Majority 3.
-Tile Bill is consequently lost.
The Bills recently brought up from the Comm Ons
were then seeerally read a first time. After which
the House astjeurned till to-morrow; when their
leirdships stand summoned upon the Earl a Sot -
folit's Motious respating the state of Ireland.