Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

support of the allegations and the preamble of the Bill, though at the same time he was of opinion, that, even if the preamble should be fully proved, there still existed sufficient in the case to render it unfit for their Lordships to entertain the Bill.

The Duke of Athol coinciding in the opinions that had been advanced by the Noble Lord, felt inclined to bestow a more immediate mark of the displeasure of the House than had been deemed adviseable by that Peer. He was for opposing the call. ing in of counsel, and for rejecting the Bill in its present stage. Such a determination would, in his opinion, evince their Lord. fhips opinion of the case before them, and would operate as a salutary warning and example.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion, that notwithstanding wbatever sentiments any Noble Lords or even himself might entertain of the particular case in question, yet there could be no impropriety, nor in his miod could any serious objection lie against the hearing of counsel or what they had to propose in evidence. He appeared perfectly to feel the truth of what was suggested by the Noble Lord respecting the conduct of the House relative to such Bills, and was of opinion that some efficient regulations were necessary. He advanced some further observations in behalf of hearing counsel, on which the Noble Duke (Athol) appeared inclined to wave his intended motion.

The Bishop of Durham declared, that he had felt inclined to coincide with the Noble Duke who had just sat down, and to have rejected the Bill even in this stage. But he deferred to the better judgment and superior authority of the Noble Lord upon the wool-sack. He rose to notice and to express bis approbation of the moral manner in which a Noble Lord (Auckland) had introduced the subject to their Lordships' notice. He had said, that less danger was to be apprehended from the menace of a French invalion, than from the importation of French immorality. Here was the danger, and here the enemy evinced the most rancorous hoftility. The Executive Directory, convinced of the impossibility of subduing us by their arms, had evinced a resolution to adopt the more dreadful and dangerous means of corrupting and contaminating the morals of our youth. They sent over to this country dancers in their pay, to undermine the rising generation by exhibitions the most scandalous, and attitudes the most immodest. Universal report had stated that the indecency of those exhibitions was not only extreme, but went far beyond what had ever been shewn not only in this country, but even upon the theatres of Athens and of Rome. He hoped that the efforts of all good men would be united in checking the progress of those evils, as they regarded the general comforts of their families as they appreciated their wives, their daughters, or the well being of their female connections. If the progress of this specics of vice were not stopped, the House would in a short time fit for the sole purpose of entertaining divorce bills. He again repeated his conviction, that a great part of those evils were to be attributed to French influence. He seemed to think there were persons even paid by France to debauch the morals of the people. It was now twenty years since he had made an effort, by a legislative provision, to check the progress of divorce. In that House he had succeeded, though his wishes had been defeated elsewhere. In the interval that had elapsed since that period, the evil had so increased, that all the efforts and influence of two Noble Lords of the Noble Lord, who so much to his own honour, and to his country's advantage, presided in that House; and of the Noble Lord (Kenyon) who had made such strenuous attempts to check the increasing immorality,—were wholly ineffectual to put an end to it. Some measure, however, would, he hoped, be thought of by those two Noble Lords. At all events, the evil was fo pressing, and sodreadful in its tendency and operation, that if no Noble Lord of superior weight and abilities would bring the subject before the House, he would himself move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to adopt measures for preventing such indecent and immoral exhibitions ; either by directing the discontinuance of them, or by ordering the dancers and persons concerned in them, out of this country.

It appearing to be the general with of their Lordships to hear Counsel, they were called in. .

Mr. Dallas was heard at great length in behalf of the Bill ; he endeavoured to impress their Lord Ihips with the idea that no sort of collusion whatever was imputable to his client, Mr, Esten, and stated a variety of circumstances, with a view to prove that such an idea was groundless. The moment Mr. E. heard of the affair between the Duke of Hamilton and his wife, he ordered a suit to be instituted, and that no subsequent delay had taken place—those delays that had taken place were unavoidable, in consequence of the Duke of Hamilton's situation rendering it neceffary to issue repeated writs of Distringas.

The Learned Counsel observed, that the nonsuit in the Court of King's Bench did not go upon the merits of the case, but upon different grounds, and that the sentence of the Ecclefiastical court was in favour of his client.

Evidence was then produced to prove the necessary facts of the marriage of the parties, which took place in February 1784. The deed of separation, it appeared, was executed in

1789, the first intimation which Mr. E. received of the adulterous connexion between his wife and the Noble Defendant, was in 1793, at which time he was in the land of St. Domingo. The issue of the trial in the Court of King's Bench, and the decision of the Ecclefiaftical Court were all regularly proved. The deed of separation was handed up from the bar, and perused by their Lordships. Several of the witnesses were clofely cross-examined by the Lord Chancellor, and several observations were made by that Noble and Learned Lord and the Bishop of Rochester, on the case to the Counsel; from these it appeared that the deed of separation was executed by Mr. E. in London, in 1789, while Mrs. E. was playing in Dublin, at the instance of her mother, and that he received some money from the latter in consequence of it. That Mrs. E. had played in Ireland some time before this, and during the absence of her husband from that kingdom. The deed of separation was closely examined by the two last mentioned Peers, and some severe and pointed remarks were made upon it by the Bishop of Rochester-fome passages which he had pointed out, were read by the clerk—they were rather curious in their tendency : one of these granted the husband's permission to the lady to follow her inclination, without molestation or hindrance, &c. In short, it was observed by the Bishop of Rochester, that these clauses were in effect, on the part of the husband, a “ traditio in manum of his wife to every adulterer in the streets.”

After the Counsel and witnesses had withdrawn, and the Bill had gone through the Committee,

I he Lord Chancellor, alluding to the speech of the Duke of Athol previously to the commitment of the Bill, said that his Grace had delivered a very strong opinion against the present case; an opinion, however, which it had since appeared was not stronger than the case itself deferved. To a divorce between the parties, the articles of separation were an unconquerable bar; and it appeared to him to be the duty of the House to reject the application, from the circumstances of collusion that appeared in the case. He therefore moved, that the Bill be rejected. The motion was agreed to nem. dill:

The Lord Chancellor again offered himself to the notice of the House, upon the subject which had occupied their Lordships' attention. A very Learned and Reverend Prelate had disclosed his determination of bringing forward a mcafure calculated to check the frequent applications for divorces. In that determination he trusted the Learned Prelate would persevere; he hoped too that the observations which had fallen from him would make their due impression; for, of the neevils, as they regarded the general comforts of their familiesas they appreciated their wives, their daughters, or the well bcing of their female connections. If the progress of this species of vice were not stopped, the House would in a short time fit for the sole purpose of entertaining divorce bills. He again repeated his conviction, that a great part of those evils were to be attributed to French influence. He seemed to think there were persons even paid by France to debauch the morals of the people. It was now twenty years since he had made an effort, by à legislative provision, to check the progress of divorce. In that House he had succeeded, though his wishes had been defeated elsewhere. In the interval that had elapsed since that period, the evil had so increased, that all the efforts and influence of two Noble Lords, of the Noble Lord, who so much to his own honour, and to his country's advantage, presided in that House; and of the Noble Lord (Kenyon) who had made such strenuous attempts to check the increasing immorality, -were wholly ineffectual to put an end to it. Some measure, however, would, he hoped, be thought of by those two Noble Lords. At all events, the evil was so presling, and fodreadful in its tendency and operation, that if no Noble Lord of superior weight and abilities would bring the subject before the House, he would himself move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to adopt measures for preventing such indecent and immoral exhibitions ; either by directing the discontinuance of them, or by ordering the dancers and persons concerned in them, out of this country.

It appearing to be the general with of their Lordships to hear Counsel, they were called in. .

Mr. Dallas was heard at great length in behalf of the Bill; he endeavoured to impress their Lordships with the idea that no fort of collusion whatever was imputable to his client, Mr. Eften, and stated a variety of circumstances, with a view to prove that such an idea was groundless. The moment Mr. E. heard of the affair between the Duke of Hamilton and his wife, he ordered a suit to be instituted, and that no subsequent delav had taken place—those delays that had taken place were unavoidable, in consequence of the Duke of Hamilton's situation rendering it necessary to issue repeated writs of Distringas. The Learned Counsel observed, that the nonsuit in the Court of King's Bench did not go upon the merits of the case, but upon different grounds, and that the sentence of the Ecclefiastical court was in favour of his client.

Evidence was then produced to prove the necessary facts of the marriage of the parties, which took place in February 1784. The deed of separation, it appeared, was executed in

1789, the first intimation which Mr. E. received of the adulterous connexion between his wife and the Noble Defendant, was in 1793, at which time he was in the Ifand of St. Domingo. The issue of the trial in the Court of King's Bench, and the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court were all regularly proved. The deed of separation was handed up from the bar, and perused by their Lordships. Several of the witnesses were closely cross-examined by the Lord Chancellor, and several observations were made by that Noble and Learned Lord and the Bishop of Rochester, on the case to the Counsel; from these it appeared that the deed of separation was executed by Mr. E. in London, in 1789, while Mrs. E. was playing in Dublin, at the instance of her mother, and that he received some money from the latter in confequence of it. That Mrs. E. had played in Ireland some time before this, and during the absence of her husband from that kingdom. The deed of separation was closely examined by the two last mentioned Peers, and some severe and pointed remarks were made upon it by the Bishop of Rochester-some pallages which he had

vaad hv the clerks they were rather curious

« AnteriorContinuar »