The Sun.
London, England, 1802-02-17 00:00:00

IMPERLIL PARLIANIEIVT.

HOUSE OF PEERS,

fUESDAY, FEB. 16.

HOAR's DIVORCE BILL:

After some routine and iprivate business was
' transacted, their Lordships proceeded so the Order
of the Day, for the second reading of the 'Bill to
diSsblve the Marriage _of GEORGE floia., the
Younger, Esq. with 'ELIZABETH COOKE, his now
wife...l
Counsel were accordingly called in, •and Mt.
.pALL As, in support of the Bill, stated the case to
their Lordships.
The Circumstances of this Case, which was the
subjea of two different Trials in Westminster Hall,
being; already fully before our readers, through the
Inednai of our. Law Reports, we deem it
_unne-
cessary to recite them.
--
It appeared generally, however, that the Pea.;
tioner, George Hoar, the Younger, Esq.-of Twy-
ford, in Hampshire, was married in April, 1787,
to Miss Elizabeth Cooke; -that they lived and col
habited together until some time in Odober, tBoo
they had no issue : that at the period last mention-
ed, the Lady left her husband's house,' and was a 1.4-
ledged to have carried on an adulterous intercourse
with Alexander 'Allan, Esq. of Somerset-street,
Portman-square; .that in consequcke Mr. Hoar
brought his action, in the usual way, Against...Major_
Allan, for damages, tin the Courts below, but ,failed
in.obtaining damages,
.a
.VerdiCt being .given for
the Defendant, and. that a second trial, -leave

being granted for a new one, had a like result.
The usual proceedings were then instituted by Mr.
Hoar, in, the Consistory Court of the Bishop of
London, in which; in juiy-last, he obtained ti sen-
tence of divorce, a mensa et thorn, from his wife.
On the above appearing, from what transpired -at

the Bar, it came regularly to the ki%oWled:# of
their Lordships, that Mr. Hoar had-brought his
an-ion for damageS in the Courts below,. i.'here he
failed of a verdia. And this, in the opinion of
two Noble and Learned Lords present (the CB AN-

•C
E LLOR. and Lord Tnuar.ow), made a most ma-
terial difference with respeA to the case under the
consideration of the House.. It necessarily gave
rise to some' discussion, principally between the
Noble Lords. above 'mentioned, and the Counsel,
iVIr. DALLAS, in the way of conversation. The
Learned. Counsel contended, with much ability, for
the regular progress of the bill, notwithstandi,ng
the omission above' specified. He argued, -that the
parties Stood in an importantly .different light at
the Bur of their Lordships' House, from what they
:did before "a Jury. In the former instance, the
'question was between the husband and wife,
and the object was Separation in the latter, it was
between the husband and the adulterer, and the ob-
jett was pecuniary compensation. The legislative
proceeding, therefore, would be on different grounds
from that on which the juridical stood. They were
prepared to prove the fad of the Adultery at their
Lordships' Bar, in the most incontrovertible man.
ner, even through the Medium of the Lady her-
self, This, on being asked by one of their Lord-
ships, the Leal:tied Counsel explained, was by means
of letters addressed by the Lady to her husband,
in which a confession of her adulterous intercourse
with Major Allan was made, and'these'docurnents,
he emphatically observed, were competent evidence
at their Lordship' Bar on the part of Mr. Hoar
against his wife, though they could not he received
as evidence in his favour against Major Allan in
the Court of King's Bench.
This communication gave rise to some explana-
tory conversation, chiefly between the Lotto CHAN,
CELLOR and the Learned Counsel, respeding the
peculiar circumstances in which such a. confession
was required to be made, in order to render it com-
petent evidence as to the fact of Adultery ; and after
scme conversation
.across the Table, between the
Law Lords above mentioned, it appeared to be
'their opinion, that, under the circumstances of the
case, the omission of the proceedings in the courts
of Law, so fir vitiated the bill, as to render it
imp.roper to proceed with it in the present instance,
and accordingly the Counsel were ordered from the
Bar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose,. and
delivered his sentiments upon the subjeet at
some length. He thought it his duty, he
said, to call their attention to the Bill then
before them : It was grounded , upon the Peti-
tion of Mr. Hoar, in which 406 circumstances
were stated, as, possibly he, the'Petitioner, might
think himseif founded in calling for the interposition
pf the Legislature in his favour. In the Petition,
the usual statements of the alledged Adultery, the
proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, &c. were
set forth : but the very important circumstances of
what took place in the Courts of- Westminster
Were omitted : with. respea- to these, it had re-
cently come to the regular knowledge of their
Lordships, that the Petitioner had brought his
aEtion for dam:wes for the alledged Adultery,
in the Courts beitw, but where a verdia for the
Defendant was given by a Jury of the country, not
considering him. entitled to Damages. Not . only
that, but a New Trial was granted, which had a
limilar result—the Jury not thinking the Petitioner
could sustain his right to Damages. He was aware
that no standing order of the House existed against
Ole entertaining Bills, in which the proceedings of
the Courts below were not specified, pr the verdiCi
of the Jury obtained by the party. He knew there
3/. v ere some cases, in which it' was impossible to ob-
tain such a Verdi& impossible from various cir-
cumstances which were not connected with the con,
duel of the Plaintiff—but the ordinary usage, and
geuerul pra6,ice of the House was adverse to enter-
taining such Bills. \Vjth respeEl to the actual
knowledge .which their Lordships might have of
the proceedings alluded to, ha-ving occurred in
tiny case, his Lordship seemed to think, that un-
less they were regularly brought within the
view of the House in thetm shape of a document,
they were not bound to take notice of them. He
did not think, that Notoriety, however. public, was
sufficient ground for their Lordships to atkupon
in such a case ; and he also seemed to think that' no
individual :reer, not even the person who had the,