Star.
London, England, 1802-02-27 00:00:00

MOM-RESIDBPIT CLFPGY.

The Duke of NOR FOL K role and aid, that in
the conrfe of Lift felSon a bill had paired the two
Houle, to grant relief to certain perfons, ecclefi
attics. relative to non rctidence in their refpeetiv..
males. That fuch bill would expire on the 25th
March. He begged therefore to know, eat)
from the Chair, or from any of the Learned and
Reverend Bench oppolite to him, whether an)
meafure was in contemplation, and meant to be
'nought forward, either to continue that Al, of
to grant relief in an, other modo that might be
.bought advifable ?

The Whop of DI A mem informed the Noble
Duke that the fubjea was under confideration of
perfnns highly intereiled in it, and that it would
be brought forward with every poffible degree of
fpeed that its nature and importance would ad-
mit of.
The Duke of NORFOLK faid the Adt would ex-
pire on the nth ofMarch, and unlefs the Reverend
Bilhop or fomc other perfon attended to bring for-
ward a bill to continue it, he thould think it his
duty, mitt as he was for it, to bring in a bill him-
felf.

The Bifhop of ROCHESTER affured the N9ble
Duke that the meafore would be brought forOl•ard
as fpeedily as pollible, but that Ihould the ACt be
fuffered to expire, no proceedings could be had fo
as fur conviCtions to take place before the long
vacation, which would not expire till November
next, and in the mean time there could be no doubt
but that effeetual meafures would be adopted to
remedy the grievances in queftion.

HOARE'S PETITION FOR A DIVORCE.

The Petition that had been prefented, for leave
to bring in a Bill to divorce him a vincub matrinsonii
was read diftinaly throughout.
The Bilhop of Roc it tma then rote and obferv.
ed, that although there was no Standing Order of
the Houfe againfl the receiving a Petition like that
juff read, which was defa tive in allegation, as it
contained no allegation of the proceeding in the
Courts below, yet that the invariable ufage of the
Houle was not to receive or entertain any petition
which was defeaive in that particular. This,
therefore, as far as he could underfiand, was the
Grit initance of fuels a petition having been pre-
ftnted. It was well known that proceedings had
taken place in the Court of Common Law; that
an aaion for damages had been brought and tried
in the Court of King's Bench; that a verdia had
been given againft the Plaintiff; that in order to
recontidcr the tr.!. its of the cafe a new trial had
been granted, and a verdia been a fecond time
given for the Defendant. It behoved the Houfc
to look to their invariable ufage, and to recollea,
that for the fake of guarding themfelves from er-
ror. it was their praaice to exited that in every
petition for a Bill of Divorce, there fhould be
Rated, that the Petitioner had obtained a Divorce
from bed and board, in the Ecelefiaftical Court,
and alfo a Verdi& of a Jury for damages in a Tem-
poral Court. In the prefent cafe no filch allega-
tion as :hat of the Verdi& of a Jury for damages
againit the adulterer had been Rated, and the faa
was, that the Jury had in two feveral iIIitAIICCS
given a verdiB for the Defendant. His Lordfhip
reafoned upon thefe fads with great firength and
energy, and raid, he was fatisfied that, in the face
of two verdias of a Jury, their Lordthips ought
not to entertain Leh a Petition, and, therefore, he
moved that the Petition he rejefted.
Lord AxyassEy took the opportunity to exprefs
his regret at the frequent occafions which, efpe-
cially of late, took place for applications to that
Houfe, in thefe kind of matters. He thought their
Lordflups fhould ufe every parible ban ier to pre-
ferve the fafety and purity of their proceedings. Of
thefe already in exiftence, the principal were, the
two points required on the part of Petitioners from
the Courts below—namely, the favourable decifion
of the Ecclefiaffical Court, and a verdia in a
Court of Common Law. Thefe were the two mot
powerful checks upon collufion. In addition, he
thought fome general rules fhould be adopted by '
their Lordfhips, for the fafety of their proceedings.
With refpea to the prefent cafe, in addition to
what had been fo ably urged brake Rev. Prelate,
they had the authority of his Learned Friend on i
the Woolfack, that it was the fief inflance of a
cafe where two fucceflive verdi&s had been given
againit the Petitioner; he would, therefore, on the
general grounds he had Rated, fupport the Motion
of the Reverend Prelate.

Tim Duke of CLARENC6 begged to enquire of
the Noble Lords oppofite to him, whether there
was not a fecond Petition upon the Paper from the
Petitioner?

The LORD CHANCELLOR quitted the Woolfack,
and expreffed his with to fay a few words on the
prefent occafion. He had, he obferved, in the in-
Rance of the former Petition and Bill, felt it his
duty to call the attention of the Houfe to the ell-.
cumftance of there being no .allegation therein re-
fpeaing the proceedings of the Courts of Welimin-
fter Hall, which, aided by the opinion delivered
by his Learned and Noble Friend on the occafion,
induced the Houfe to poftpone the further confi-
deration of the cafe, in order to afford the Peti-
tioner an opportunity to prefent another more con-
formable to the rules of the Houfe, in which the
real Efate of the cafe, and alio the grounds upon
which the Petitioner thought himfelf entitled to the
interpolition of the Legiflature in his behalf, fhould
be let forth ; this he had accordingly done, and
which fecond Petition had been conlidered, in the
firft inflance, on that day fe'nnighr. In anfwer to
what fell from the Royal Duke, his Lordfhip ob-
ferved, that yefterday, and not before, a fecond
Petition had been prefented, the object of which
was, for leave for the Petitioner to be heard by his
Counfel. On this Petition no motion whatever
was made—it was ordered to lie on the Table ; nor
was there even now any motion before the Houfe
refpeaing it. In obferving upon the motion of
the Reverend Prelate, he teemed to with to con-
fine himfelf to general principles, and not to refer
to the particular cafe, in which, whilvarguing upon
the queftion, he would even fuppofe that the whole
tenor of the Petitioner's conduit proceeded from
error, and that he was unfortunatiin not obtain-
ing the verdicts But even in there- viips of the
queftion, he mull advert to the confideratinfi, that
there trifled no precedent for a Bill proceeding
upon fuch a Petition as that before the Houfe.—
Were fuch a Bill to be entertained, there could
not, in his opinion. be a more dangerous precedent
eftablifhed, with a reference not only to the fafety
of their Lordfhips' proceedings, but on the genera!
ground of the morals of the public, as conflated
with the important confideration of divorce. His
Lordfhip then adverted to the two great points re-
quired on the part of the Courts below, in order
to qualify Petitioners for applying to the Legifla-
ture for redrefs, namely, the divorce a Norio et thoro
from the Ecclellattical Court, and a decifion of a

Court of Law, that the party was entitled to re-
cover damages. Thefe were the modes of redrefs
prefented to the Petitioner by the existing law, and
which it was required he (hould avail himielf of,
before he could, with propriety, come for the fpe-
cial interpofition of the .Legillature in his behalf,
which was in fad a partial interpofition, beyond
the general law of the land. The cafe before the
Houle, in the prefent intlance, was deft:Clive in one
of thole material points, and the cffed of entertain-
ing a Bill founded thereon, would be, placing the
Houle in a tituation of reviewing the proceedings
of the Courts of Law. In this part of his addrefs the
Noble and Learned Lord argued the qucflion with
seat ability, and in various points of view, with a
reference to the dangerous precedent which the paif-
ing of the required Bill would eflablifit ; and on
thefe grounds colledively, he was inclined to fop-
port the motion. In addition to thefe ohjations,
the particular circumtlar,es of the prefent cafe,
which he confidcred as `store exceptionable than 1.
even thole where judgment had been fuffered to go
by defaujt,were to be taken into confideration; and
thefe particular heads his Lordthip argued with
great ability, and at confiderahle length.—To a
certain extent his obfervations were repetitions of
what he had previoufly advanced on the fame fub-
jed ; and in concluding he cautioned their Lord- j
(hips againft entertaining a Bill, one of the perni.
cious cffeds of which, among thefe various ones
he had already adverted to, w ,ould be that of en- 1,
I abling any Lady, who may unfortunately be fo
I ditpofed, to tranflate herfelf, under circumfiances
the molt reprehenfible in every point of view, from ,1
one family into another, in the character of a wife.
He was fully aware, that the rigid adherence,
which the falety of their Lordfhips' proceedings
required, and which the interefts of the public mo.
rats loudly called for, may occafionally, and in
fume circum fiances, operate as an individual hard-
ship : but this was a confideration of a partial and
unavoidable grievance, which fhoultinot for a mo-
' ment be differed to (land oppofed to the great and
gervral kite; eft; of public morals and virtue.
Lord T. K Low went pretty much at length in-
to. the circtuntlances of the cafe. He Paid that it
was to be conlideted that the depofitions in the Ec-
clefiatlical Court were all given in writing, where.
as in a trial in a Court of Common Law all the
evidence was delivered viva voce, and the witneffes
were fubjefted to crofs-examination, It therefore
frequently happened, that upon crofs examination
j of witneffes viva wore, a cafe came out far different
from that which had been prefented to the Eccle-
fiallical Court, and confequently the proceeding
in a Court of Common Law on an aftion for da-
mages againft an adulterer was, if any thing, of
greater importance as a fafegnard to their Lord-
(hips in their proceedings, in a cafe of Petition for
a Bill of Div. ree, than even what had pallid in
the Ecclefluft cal Court. His Lordtbip Paid, he
concurred in the fentehce given in Dodors' Com-
mons, and he Paid to exprefsly, becaufe he could
go no further; and even on perufal of the docu.
ments that ft ited the proceedings there, he found
abundant circumftances to have induced the Judge
to pure before he paired fentence ; but fill he
thought the Divorce a nretyit et there well warranted.
His Lordfbip went into tome of the evidence given
in the Court, and animadverted upon it at force
length. With regard to there being no Standing
Order of the Houfe to. refrain their Lordfhips
from receiving a petition that was fo far defedive,
as not to contain an allegation of the petitioner
having obtained 4 verdift for damages againft the
adulterer, his Lordthip reminded the Houfe, that
they had not only the invariable nfage of the
Hoof:, and the crdinary cond.: of their proceed-
ings, at war with the idea of entertaining the pre-
fent petition, but that whenever any peculiar cit.
crunttance came out in the evidence given at their
Bar, which, notwithltanding that it did not Co
far affeet the right of the petitioner to receive the
relief he prayed for, yet was out of the common
cou fe of proceeding as to be a novelty, it was al-
ways cxprefsly noti:ed in the Bill, and the reafon
affigned that acconated for it, and therefore filch
an e‘planatiou Rated in a Bill followed up by en•
adin3 chutes, in compliance with the Petitioner's
prayer in his petition, was of' itfelf tantamount to
any Stan ling Order of the Houle, and cxprefsly
manit'efte that the Houfe had a fettled mode of
proceeding in cafes of Divorce Bills from which
they never departed but on very flrong, extraordi-
nary, and fpecific grounds. His Lordthip added
a variety of other obfervations illuftrative of his
gen rat argument, and though he lamented and
c sup itlionated the cafe of the diftreffed and unfor-
tuna e petitioner, concluded with declaring that
he c u el not but agree with the noble and learned
Lords in thinking that the Houfe ought not to en.
test ; n fuch a petition.
Ti.e Duke of CLARENCE explained that one of
the eaufes of having fo earnefly alluded bathe Cm-
cond Petition, was under the idea that his Noble
and Learned Friend might not probably be aware
that fuch a document exited. In reference to the
question in debate, his Roial Highnefs teemed to
fay, it might be proper for their Lordlhips to con.
' fieher h iw far the circuit It ince of refuting to enter-
tain the Bill, may noa go to veft in a jury the
ul-
timate decition upon that, which it was the privi-
lege of their Lordfhips to determine upon
The Bithop of ROCHESTER in explanation oh-
ferved, that he was nut aware, until very recently,
that a fecond Pritiun was on the Table, but which
' he learned, from autho' ity, had not been preferred
before yefterday evening. With refpet to this, it
was competent to a.,y Peer to offer what motion
lie thought proper, but no proceeding whatever
of that kind lie un ler flood had taken place.
Lord Borrow fait! he had too high a refpeft for
the opinion and judgment of die noble and learn-
ed Lords who had delivered their opinions, to at-
pt to &led to their arguments, or to dillent
rum the decifion that appeared likely to be um-
,
verfally affented to by the Houle. He role merely
obferve, that every noble Lord who had fpoken
had mentioned the Petitioner with compaffion, as
;t very unfortunate man, although, from the edit-
bided rules and forms of the Houfe, they had it
not in their power to afford him the relief he pray-
ed for. His with was to fecond their feelings in
the Petitioner's behalf—feelings which did them