§ The order of the day respecting this bill being read, counsel and evidence in support of the same were called to the bar. After the counsel had withdrawn,
§ The Bishop of St. Asaph rose; he observed, the question before their lordships was one of great and peculiar importance. 429 That house was more especially the guardians of the public morals; and against these, nothing, he conceived, could be more detrimental than the frequency of divorces, he was, therefore, upon all occasions, unwilling to concur in them; and, he thought, however hard the case might press upon a few individuals, it would, on the whole, be better if no bill of the kind were ever passed. With respect to the present case, he must say, it exhibited an instance of the grossest infidelity; it was not a single act from a sudden impulse of the passions, but a deliberate abandonment of a well-deserving woman, and a taking of a strumpet to his arms, in which he persevered many years. However, to consider the subject on general, and on public grounds, there might be something peculiarly strong and striking in a case of this kind, to induce the legislature to assent to the prayer of the petition. The case of Mrs. Addison, referred to by the learned counsel, was one totally distinct from that under consideration. In that case it was really a moral impossibility that the parties could come together; as it was proved that the husband had an adulterous intercourse with his wifes own sister. Nay, farther, the wife herself would be guilty of incest, if she returned to her husband. There was nothing of that kind to induce a moral impossibility in the present case—nothing but a strong degree of inference. They could not, consistly with a most important duty, consent to relieve the petitioner duty, consent to relieve the petitioner in the way proposed. However, he had to observe, he could not understand how the lady's circumstances could be improved by a dissolution of the marriage, which would involve a loss of the alimony. Upon the whole, the learned prelates opinion of the case was such, as to induce him to move, that, instead of "now," "the bill should be read a second time that day three months".
§ The Earl of Carnarvon expressed his dissent from the opinion of the learned prelate, that their lordships passing such a bill as that under consideration would operate injuriously upon the public morals. Neither was he aware of any law, or any rule of that house, which precluded a woman from addressing the legislature, and obtaining relief, as well as a man, if the particular merits of the case entitled her to it. He thought the circumstances of the case under consideration ought to induce their lordships to assent to the bill. He would ask the rev. prelate, whether it was necessary to the 430 public morals, that the husband to the lady in question should be suffered to do every thing that could disgrace her, and deprive her of the comforts of life? Whether it was necessary, for the sake of good morals, that the lady should be driven to seek relief at the door of a profligate, who had robbed her of her husbands affections, and diminished his means of maintaining her. After dwelling shortly on these topics, with some degree of warmth and feeling, his lordship proceeded to the consideration of certain canonical laws, and ecclesiastical regulations, which bore upon the subject, particularly a canon of the year 1603, which he argued was not binding upon the laity, nor upon the clergy, farther than they thought proper, and that divorces were permitted by the divine law. He then recurred to the subject of the bill, and adverted to the reduced circumstances of the lady's husband, which must affect the payment of the alimony, and argued for the passing of the bill, which would enable the petitioner to seperate herself from an unworthy husband. He was not apprehensive of the bills getting a dangerous precedent, as every case would naturally rest upon its own particular merits, and be decided upon by their lordships accordingly.
§ Lord Hawkesbury concurred with the rev. prelate, in a great deal of what he said upon the general subject. He observed, that no precedent whatever obtained, of a bill being granted upon the application of a woman, except in the case of Mrs. Addison, the circumstances of which were not in the least applicable to the present case. In the one instance, a reconciliation between the parties was totally out of the question; in the present, it was merely improbable. A material distinction appeared throughout. But the general question involved considerations which were to be contemplated with a reference to their effects upon society; a distinct rule and principle, with respect to such, cases, hitherto obtained: were this to be broken in upon, it would be difficult in future cases to draw the line. The very good nature of some individual peers would induce them to grant, without sufficient discrimination, that which, in the views he referred to, would eventually be detrimental and injurious.
§ Lord Auckland made a few general observations in favour of what fell from the rev. prelate, and the noble secretary of state. It was a point upon which he seemed to have made up his mind, and he particularly ad- 431 to the serious importance of the question, with reference to its setting a precedent for future applications.
§ The Lord Chancellor adverted to what he had stated on a former evening, namely, his prehension, that he should feel it his painful duty to give a negative to the farther progress of the bill, unless the counsel in support of the measure could alter the opinion he then entertained, and that he thought the best way of giving notice on the occasion. With respect to the particular case, he never recollected to hear a more favourable representation given of any woman. But yet, on those general grounds of public morality, which had been so ably adverted to by those noble lords who had preceded him, he must proceed with respect to his assent to the bill. With regard to the case of Mrs. Addison, which had been referred to, it was as distinct from that under consideration, as any case could be, and yet, even that case, in its effects without doors, had produced considerable mischief, as any of their lordships would perceive, should they take the trouble to look at certain trials. With respect to particular parts of the allegations on the part of the petitioner, there were still open different modes of redress distinct from that of divorce, and which could be recurred to. As to the question before the house, upon those great and leading principles to which he had referred, and the conviction he felt as to the probable, nay almost certain injurious effects of trenching upon them, he felt it his painful duty to give a negative to the original motion.—The house then divided; when there appeared for the bishop of St. Asaphs amendment 10—Against it 7—Majority 3.—Adjourned.