The Sun.
London, England, 1815-06-15 00:00:00

ROSEBERILY DIVORCE

The House %vent into a Committee on the
Roseberry Divorce Bill. Mr. Topping arid Mr.
'Jones appeared before the Committee as' Counsel
in support of the Bill, and were heard. There
were no -Couns.el in attendance on tote inirt of LAS/.
ROseberry. -The witnesses necessary to support
the case were then called in and exaMined. At
ter the Counsel withdrew,

Mr. M. A. TAYLox remonstrated against_ the
smallness. of the allowance m'Ade to Lady Rose.
berry, contending that it was wholly inadegnate
to ho- inainten3nce. The snit) stated in the b'ill.
was 3001. he wished it . tO be angiriented to 5001.
Co he cont;nneil after the death of Lord
berry, and he proposed an 'amendment to that
effect. -

ATTORNEY-GENERAL waS, not to,
Allow the the ease of the .annuity,. provide.d the
chose were agreed to for preventing-the marriage
of Lady Itoseberry hereafter. Fie wished the !no-
tion of Tay)or to be postponed, therefore;
nut question were decided.
• The at of Mr. Taylor teas accordingly
deferred to a later stage of the Committee. '
On arriving; at the &nose prohibit-itt the future
marriage of LAdy Roseherry,. -
Ptlr. M. A. TAY-Lon'entered into an examitintiort

of the various attempts that have been made to
introince Bills to prevent the niarriage of parties
who had
,beep guilty of adultery. first mea,.•
.
nitre had been-proposed as early ai the:yerrr 1750:
u
of it was renewed in 1779.,. and again de-
feated—the subject teas- a third tittle flndertaken
by the present Master of the Rolls; lvho, upon re-, •
presentation made, was subsequently' induced ter.
forego the motion of which he had given notice.
He. adverted to the cruelty of such a regulation,
contending'that there was nothing in the Cannon
Law which, had made the Connection between rSi
H. Mildmay- and Lady Roseberry incestuous, and
that it was depriving the unhappy female. of her
last refuge from the last depravities of vice. He
proposed that the clause should be•omitted.
The ATTORNEY-CENENAL, on the contrary,' •
maintained, that the peculiar circumstances of the
case rendered it fit that this clause should be adopt
edi that the punishment inight be as,severe and as
complete as possible. He went ovt4'r all the ag-
gravations of the case with much warmth, argu-
ing that both frotH ft iendship and the ties of blood
'Sir H. Mihlinav •teas the last' person that, ought to
hate seduced Lady Rosebcrry to the committal of
such a crime. He had been the husband of the
sister of Lady Rbseberry, and instead of hispirin;r7
unlaWful passions, it was rather to be imagined.
that she would have rentindect Jinn of his own,
wife lately dead, and of the endearments that
had behniged to that happy union. In the opinitin
of the Attorney-General this was one of the most
atrocious cases that hail ever occurred. Its it were
contended that by _the Canon Law, Lady Rose-.
berry and Sir 11. Mildmay were prevented front
mart Ong, and that therefore the clause was not '
necessary, he should argue, that owthat very ac-
count it was more required to prevent future pro-
ceedings on the 1,-clesiastial Court against a mar-
riage that would be illegal',' and that would render
the children illegitimate, ,
Air. 111. A, TAYLOR observed; that.the remarks-of
his Honourable-and Learned Friend (Sir W. Gar..
row) were such as might have been well directed
,to a Jury to increase the damages, but could not
operate upon the House. '['he House should not
legislate uptrn fechng, but upon justice, and tit
insert clause to prohibit the marriage of the pr.
ties would not be justified on the ground affi •
nity, as marriages were daily contracted bettveen
parties who stood in the sime relation to"one
other. But if the Canon Law tO,bad the mar-
riage, that hew should sake its course, and the.
Kesent clause would be unnecessary.
Mr.'LoCKHART ?bservea, that the ground on
which marriage was forbad between persons cksely
related, ,either by blood or alliance., was the cor-
ruption of manners which mightl ensue, if ideas
of marriage were,suffered to exist between per-
sons who were in such constant communication
with each other. Ott that };round he'should sup-
port the-clanse as maintaining the Canon Law—a -
great auxiliary. to Morals.
Mr. W. NVYNNE sa'd, that the insertion of the
chuse, in thc. prevnt instancii, ditl.not bhul the
House to the adoption of a similar chokse iii oth'...r•
cases, because a Divorce Bill was at all tiiIICS
special interference of the Lelislature, they,
might fashion according to tlieir di 7cretion. Ttiere
Ind b.:en a precedent for the a:tinitsion of a situi-•