The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-17 00:00:00

et, an.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1819

" The Cause for which BANPoen fell in tk held, and SroYer died on the Sceffold! "

CONSISTORY COURTof LONDON, JILT 16.

history of this letter emission of big wife's. They
bad strived in England in August, 1815, god went
to live at Cordon's Hotel, from whoop they removed
shortly after. But while they continued there, Mr.
French returned from Paris, and took up hie resi-
dence at Loirg's Hotel, gad immediately letters and
presents were interchanged In profusion between that
Gentleman sad Mrs. Procter; for whew be ordered
some rings, °regimented with a sariety of siguificant
desires, at Gray's, iu Bond-street. These, sbe ob-
sfrged to her husband, she had received from a fe-
male friend. Having at length got back to Mar.
docks, she was asked at dinner one day, by the Rev.
Mr. Proctor, the father of her husband, whether she
bud any commands for the post (et Ware)? She
blushed eaceediogly 1 god om the t'a rearming,
Mr: Procter discovered the pocket in question. She
them went to the hone of Mr. lisle, her father;
and being confronted there the nest day, the llth
of October, gilds bet husband, he tend her with in-
fidelity, which she at first positively denied; bet
epee his producing the letters of which he bad ob.
wined possession, she became escoodingly agitated,
and retired to her bed-room, whither Mr. Proctor
followed her, and took from her ether letters that
left no doubt of her guilt. She thou confessed her
adultery with French, sad made attempts, by ins.
ploring acknowledgments, to obtain a recoeciliation.
Being then within three months of her confinement,
Mr. Proctor yielded to the entreaties of herself and
the representations of her father, sod did not tease
the hone till after the " arecouchewseier had taken

place: be then finally godlier' be►, and she appears
to hare tired with ber father from that period (Ja-
hoary, 1816) to the following December.
The Leaned RMS, otter adverting to these fact.,
observed, that this slit was commenced in the begin-
ning of 1817. Much time was stated to hare been
lust, be re.inn of the diflirolty in procuring wit.
n . Ile should tint nowenter into more minute de-
tailt ; the proofs of ti,r adultery were abundant, aid
such es ware “Iffictrilt to maintsits many snore than
that ono case he had now to decide. Thal far theta
could be no doubt, that tbehoshand wasfolly entitled
to his separation. Hot the case did not rest hero ;
the Court smellier] epos to take cognizance of other'
facts materially affecting, not the indisputable guilt
of this female, bat the till. of the husband to his
remedy. Mrs. Proctor, notwithstanding all the pro.
fusions which she made upon the discovery of hoe
correspondence with French, and after all bet dodo-
ration* of docent contrition, her entreaties for for.
gireness, and ►er promises of amendment to her bus.
hood, had manifested that most decided hostility to.
wards him. She had accused him, in her taro, of
adultery with • woman sawed Charlotte
whom ha had permitted to lose his name, with whom
ha had resided in various parts ofthe town, io Here-
ford.otreet, in Marsbatl.str•et, the Edgewise-road,
and elsewhere, and by whom he was charged to
have had a child. His Counsel, indeed, bad ac-

knowledged that fact, add the usual plea, as to the
identity of Mr. Praetor with the person who so lived
with her, and bee non-ideotity with Mrs. Proctor his
wife, was folly proved. On this sotto of facts,
then, a question arose, whether ho had forfeited his
title to a sentence of separation or not ? There seem-
ed no resscn to imagine but that he bed always pro.
vioesly confined himself to a strict fidelity to his town
bed. If be had not, if he hod forfeited this claim,
the family which might be new existing or hereafter
to be born, would become entitled to his name, and
not merely to the rights of legitimacy, bat to those
of succession to his estate. He might be the father
ref spurious children, sad yet those children 'afield
le entitled to his property, and himself liable for
their debts. And what would be his remedy in that
cace? He most resort to the almost insuperable dif-
ficulty of proving a non.intercourse with his wife, to
prevent him from !Ong under these moat painful ob-
hellions. By failing in this snit, he might be com-
pelled to endure that the effsprieg of a marriage bed,
milted with pollution and dishonest?, aboold inherit
414 name, rights, and property. This them would
he, indeed, a case of great ity, as •n the part
of the husband there were no previous irregularities
on his side. Tito law, perhaps, provided some re.
coerce; for there was no question that the legal na-
tore of the marriage contract had Its origin from the
Canna 1.1., bet not to the eateot of that law. The
sacred obligations of marriage might be suspended,
but they could not be extinguished. Tbey IMO traced
in characters indelible and perpetual ; no derelic-
tion of the marriage duties mild annihilate that
hallowed and solemn centred, which by the maxim
of the law, was recognised as inv:olable. (We re-
gret that ter limits will not permit us to follow this
Learned Judge through bit whole train of eloquent
■nd elaborate reasoning upon the points which fol-
low, or to giro even s sketch of the extensive as-
thorities which he cited in the coarse of this jail..
meat.) With regard to the arguments which the
Learned Counsel bad handed upon the principle of
compensaffo crintihis, it was a doctrine sot introduc-
ed by the Canon Law, bet area which uppeered to
hale been a standing institution of the Civil Law,
and ono generally quoted in cases of this notion,
wheys a legal separation was prayed. Certain It
was that the general matter of compensation was re-
gulated by principles which the Civil Law defined.
There were no cases on their books of practice, none
on the ►et:ords of their Court (applicable to the eir-
cum•tences of this Soh) which tlvprittesi shot has.
baud of a sentence, who bad confined Mosel( to
the marriage bed, till after be bad left his wife—
& separation occasioned by her own miscoudoet.
—No such decisions mete to be found; but the
Canon Liw thought otherwise. It Intot.dird to
provide against the miecolefs, and to remedy those
inconviencies to which parties sore subjected by mu-
tual seoatatiob ; it therefore 11, that a husband

talc E ID;

.if., thus circumstanced, should be through life apse
an equal footing. That such was the doctrine of tb*
Canon Law was quite certain. It saw no distinction
betimes the husband's committing adultery before or
after the misconduct of his wife. The Court would
Subject itself to the charge of idle pedantry, by Mul-
tiplying authorities (beyond those it bad already
quoted) on • doctrine se clearly established. If co.-
duct were to be taken as its guide in this use, there
could be so question as to it sentence; if not, it oast
rest upon the decisions of their own law. lie was
sorry to say none were to he found. if they, then,
were wanting, recourse must be had to considerations
of reason, morality, and peblic convenience. It
was perfectly notorious that this country, after the
Reformatiee, adopted the whole of the marrisge
rims from the Cason Law ; the whole of our
Marriage Law in matter sod form was construct-
ed upon it ; and that the doctrine of its iodise°.
lability still remained in fall force, the conduct
of the Leeislatere in interfering to grant divorcee,
under same cunt especislly proved. The prima.
pie, then, being retained, carried with it all its
consequences. It carried with it, email the din..
Wilily which adultery carried iota, the origins! con-
tract of marriage. " Yet taking this (concluded the
Learned Judge) for my guidance, I cannot be bliad
to the fact, that the Canon Law prevailing on this
point, in this and other European coeutries, does not
give that benefit to the busload which it ought to
do." Its results were, spurious children and separate
debts: what were the Incoueniences of the rule, as
it no• stood, however, *as a question such as the
Court bad no right nor any duty to esamine. Them
as to this species of retaliation, whether such a re.
!station ought to be Waged, consistently with the
!Dieresis of general morality, was a matter also be-
yoad its eoquity. The question confined itself to
this—whether the husband was entitled, under the
eliding circumstances, to a separation ? The Coot
Au of opinion that be was not.—Suit dismissed.