The National Register.
London, England, 1809-05-07 00:00:00

MAY 7:

and adultress to intermarry as soon as the Bill passed which se-
parated for ever the 'offending wife from bet °trended husband.
And barefaced and flagrant has this praLtice been, that in a
recent initanee the adulterer and adultress were married on the
very same day that the Divorce Bill of the latter pas-ed their
Lordships' house:. His Lordship, from this topic, proceeded
to take a view of the various ills annexed to the crime of adul-
tery, and chew therefore the argent necessity of their
Luc&laps adopting the principle he suggested, and concluded
with moving, a• That it be a standing order of the House, that
every Bill of Divorce on account of adultery introduced therein,
Ithomid contain a clause, prohibiting the e;Tending parties from
intermarriage."

Lord Ma!grave could not approve of such a legi:lntive inter-
ference, fur the very same reasons. Beside,:, he thought that. n
regulation of this kind would tend to manifeAt injet-aice and cru-
elty. It would go the leugtli of for ever leaving it out of the
pincer of the unhappy find undone female of maki at, any atone-
ment to society for the. wrong she did : some there Were who
thought that there ought to be a law compelling the seducer to
marry theseduced. He had no objection that adultery should be
constituted a crime, and allotted the most severe punishmeut ; but
he never would consent to sanction the principle, much less the
proposition of the Noble Lord.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a sound and orthodox
speech-, defended the principle submitted to their Lordships, awl
lamented the great increase of this crime, which, he contended,
would, if not prevented, at least be diniinished by the measure
proposed. His Grace entered into a short but able dissertation
of the law of divorce, as it prevailed with the Greeks and Ro-
mans, and illustrated his observations from authorities of the
must remote antiquity, skewing that even up to the present pe-
riod, the law, evangelical and civil, never sanctioned the inter-
marriage of the adultrous parties.

The Earl of Liverpool defended the motion in a very able
speech, and the House divided, after a short explanation be-
tween the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mulgrave, Lord Grenville,
and Lord Stanhope. _ _ _

For the !notion 28 1 Against it 12 I Majority for it 16.
Adjourned.

Wednesday, .flay 3.
The British Ships Capture Bill was read a third time and
passed.

Thursday, May 4.

A MERICA.

torti Selkirk rose, pursuant to notice, to submit a motion to
their Lordship,. respecting the character of the affair which took
/since, in HO7, between his Majesty's frigate the Leopard, and
the frigate of the United States, the Chesapeake; of the causes
that led to it, and of the consequences with which it may beat-
tended. The matter of this motion he had long meditated, and
could not, consistent with what he felt to be his duty, dclav any
'longer la ing before the !louse the notions and I heap pre herbions
to which it gave rise in his mind, if therefore negociations
were now pending between this country and the Americas
vernmeut, this afair between the Leopard and Chesapeake, and
4t he grnunds upon which it took place, should he most seriously
-attended to. This business involved a question of the highest
importance; it involved the claim of our naval pre-eminence, it
tov olved the source of our commercial prosperity, and indeed of
'jar national greatness. Conceiving that their Lordships'
minds must be impressed with the necessity of coming to a
clear understanding on these points with the Government of the
17oired States, he should content himself with moving an humble
.Address to his Majesty, praying that he would be plea,ed to
direct, that in the Negociatiuns now pending, this point be par-
ticularly attended to.

The Earl of Liverpool Objected to it, not only on the grounds
which he touched upon when the Noble Lord gave notice of his
motion, which grounds weer the impropriety of agitating these
points at a moment when negociatious were in train upon them,
hut on the ground that it was unconstitutioual in that House to
interfere with their advice during the progress ofa negociation,
the opening of which belonged to the pretogativc of the Crown,
and for the conduct and character of which the Ministers of the
Crown were re3ponsible.
- - -

.After which the question wa% put and negatived without a