Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

in effecting their descent, and in carrying | subject of divorce as it stood at all periods on their subsequent operations against the enemy.

4. "That the thanks of this House be given to rear admiral sir Richard Bickerton, bart., and to the several captains and officers in the fleet under the command of admiral lord Keith, for their cordial and effectual co-operation with the land forces in effecting their descent, and carrying on their operations, on the coast of Egypt.

5." That this House doth highly approve of, and acknowledge, the service of the seamen and marines on board the ships under the command of admiral lord Keith, in the cordial and effectual assistance which they afforded to the land forces in their descent on the coast of Egypt, and in the subsequent operations against the enemy; and that the captains of the several ships do signify the same to their respective crews, and thank them for their meritorious conduct."

Debate in the Lords on Addison's Divorce Bill.] May 20. The House went into a committee on the Bill" to dissolve the marriage of Jane Campbell with Edward Addison, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again." The first enacting clause being read,

The Duke of Clarence said, he should simply move, that the clause be expunged. Mrs. Addison had made out so strong a case, that if any criminal conduct of a husband towards his wife could amount to a justification of her obtaining a divorce from him at the hands of the legislature, Mrs. Addison's was that very case; but when he considered the novelty of the legislature granting a divorce to a wife on complaint of adultery on the part of her husband, the infinite mischiefs it might lead to by encouraging the foulest collusions between married couples to obtain an effectual discharge from their marriage vows and connexions, and the effect the practice would have on the morals of society, he must resist the present application. Applications for divorce had so multiplied, that it was absolutely necessary to check them, and nothing could do so more effectually than to guard against the facility of its being obtained. For the reasons he had stated, he should move, "That the clause be expunged."

Lord Thurlow said, he had been excited by this bill to examine the whole

of time, and under all circumstances: that he had considered the manner in which the crime of adultery was treated by the Levitical law, by the Mosaic institutions, and by the gospel; that he found, in all of them, that a woman might be put away by her husband for adultery, and there was no express injunction that a wife might not, on the same crime of adultery having been proved to have been committed by the husband, obtain a separation from him, nor was there any prohibition to restrain the parties from marrying again. He stated, that marriage was originally instituted for the benefit of human kind, and for the comfort and happiness of social life. When, through any incompetency in the parties before marriage, it was afterwards found that the end and object of marriage was frustrated, it was wisely deemed expedient to separate the parties. In modern times, divorces had been granted by the legislature à vinculo matrimonii, upon proof of adultery of the wife; and the necessity of applying to the legislature for such a separation arose from the ecclesiastical court not feeling themselves warranted to do more than to grant a divorce à mensa et thoro, because the canons on which the practice of the ecclesiastical court was founded, restrained them to that species of divorce, which, in fact, was in one point of view sufficient, because it put an end to the marriage connexion, as there could be no farther cohabitation unless a reconciliation took place. But, in order to complete the whole form of the proceeding, it was usual for persons having obtained a divorce à mensa et thoro in the Commons, to apply to that House for a divorce à vinculo matrimonii; and he need not state that the House had on a variety of occasions passed bills of divorce. On all such occasions their lordships, with equal equity and justice, governed their conduct by the peculiar circumstances of each particular case that came under their consideration. Indeed, he knew not how they could act otherwise, because he knew of no rule to direct their conduct in respect to divorce, or to limit the wisdom and discretion of the House. Where was he to look for such a rule? Was it to be found in the common law? Was it prescribed by special statute? Was it enforced by reason, by common sense, by morality or religion? No such thing. On the present occasion what was the nature of the

grea objection to granting the petitioner, a deeply-injured wife, the divorce she prayed for?-a principle of mistrust of themselves, and a doubt lest they should, on any future application by a wife for a divorce, not conduct themselves with sound discretion. Was such a mistrust to be gravely argued as a sufficient reason to justify a house of parliament, with evidence before them that amounted to undeniable conviction of the truth of the criminal charges alleged, in refusing justice to a petitioner standing under the circumstances in which Mrs. Addison stood at their bar? Let those circumstances be duly weighed and considered-Mrs. Addison complained of her husband, not merely on the ground of adultery, but on the aggravated ground of an incestuous adultery. Let their lordships suppose, by way of illustration of the effect of an incestuous intercourse, that Mr. Addison had carried on a criminal connexion with Mrs. Addison's sister previous to his marriage with Mrs. Addison:-in that case he could not have contracted marriage with his present wife, because such marriage would have been tainted with incest, and, if entered into, would have been pronounced by the ecclesiastical court void in itself. Look, then, to the case as it actually stood:-in divorces, expectations were sometimes formed that a reconciliation might take place between the parties; but in this case, were Mrs. Addison ever so much inclined to forgive her husband, a reconciliation could not legally take place, because a future connexion between them as man and wife would be tainted with incest. Mrs. Addison had obtained a divorce à mensa et thoro from the ecclesiastical court, and prayed the House to complete the form of the proceeding by granting her a divorce à vinculo matrimonii; and could their lordships, after what they had heard upon oath at their bar, refuse the request? Did they see nothing immoral in compelling Mrs. Addison, after what had passed, to remain connected and under the power of her husband? A noble lord who sat near him, (lord Auckland), had suggested a case which might have been brought to their lordships bar, though it ended otherwise; and that was the well-known case of lord Audley, who had been guilty of an injury to his lady of a still deeper dye. He had compelled his menial servant to commit a rape on his lady, and had, at the same time, committed an unnatural crime upon

his servant himself. Supposing that, in that instance, the lady had petitioned the House for a divorce bill, would their lordships have refused the prayer of such a petitioner? This case of Mrs. Addison certainly fell short of that of lady Audley; but, nevertheless, it was in every point of view so flagrant and so enormous, and at the same time so widely distinct in its nature and circumstances from those that might hereafter form the ground of any future application for a divorce by a wife complaining of her husband, that it ap peared to his mind utterly irreconcilable to every principle of justice, for their lordships to rest upon an unwise mistrust of themselves in any future case, and refuse the divorce. Another ground be would just mention why the bill ought to pass the committee; he understood that Mrs. Addison had children, one of them a female. By the law of England, all children were under the authority and power of their father, unless a special legislative prohibition took them out of his power. Now, their lordships must all agree, that such a father as Mr. Addison had proved himself to be, was unfit to be entrusted with the education of an inno cent and virtuous daughter. On these considerations, and as no reconciliation between the husband and wife could be legally made, and the end and object of marriage was already decided, he should vote for the clause standing a part of the bill.

The Lord Chancellor (Eldon) said, that the public were highly indebted to the learn ed lord for the very able manner in which be had laid down the law of divorce, and the sound arguments that he had raised upon it. He must confess that his mind and opinion upon the present case had been greatly affected by the new light in which his learned friend had placed it. He had formed an opinion after much consideration, which went to the opposite of the conclusions of his learned friend; but as his learned friend had pointed out, plainly and explicitly, that the end and object of marriage was in this case concluded irrecoverably-that no reconciliation could be hoped for, because any reconciliation would be illegal, from the act of adultery committed having been an act of incestu ous adultery, he should feel little difficulty in giving way to the greater wisdom, experience, and judgment of his learned friend; as he was now satisfied that the divorce, in the present instance, from the

specialties of the case, stood manifestly contradistinguished from any other application by a wife for a divorce that was likely to be brought before the House, and that the bill might pass without operating as a dangerous precedent. At the same time, however, he must retain his opinion, that upon an application by a wife, on the adultery of her husband, for a divorce, the application resting upon that simple and distinct ground, ought, for the sake of securing the morals of the public, to be resisted and refused. It was to be considered, that adultery committed by a wife, and adultery committed by her husband, were widely different in their consequences. The adultery of a wife might impose a spurious issue upon the husband, which he might be called upon to dedicate a part of his fortune to educate and provide for; whereas no such injustice could result to his wife, from the adultery of a married man; and in many cases, not only a reconciliation might be brought about, but it became the especial duty of a wife to forgive her husband's misconduct, from motives of tenderness, and concern to the interests of his innocent children.

reasonings and eloquence had carried convictions to the bosoms of all who had heard him. When Mrs. Addison's application for a divorce was first made to the House, he (lord A.) had seen it with real concern; both because the agitation of such subjects was at all times disgusting to him, and because the exhibition and details of domestic profligacy at their lordships bar had a tendency to corrupt the hearts and morals of the community. But when he found that the discussion could not be avoided, it became his duty to attend to it with an earnest wish to bring it to such a decision as might leave no doubt on good and unsophisticated minds. The injury complained of had been fully proved; its criminality was manifest; its atrociousness was acknowledged, To him it had appeared impossible to refuse a bill of relief in a case so circumstanced. But he had hesitated from deference to others who had expressed an opinion that the passing of such a bill was a novelty of a dangerous nature, and might open a door for many collusions. In fact, the whole system of parliamentary divorces is in some degree novel: for there had not been more than four or five instances beThe Earl of Rosslyn also confessed his fore the commencement of the eighteenth obligations to the learned lord, for the century. But so long ago as in the earl of clear light in which he had placed the Northampton's case, a question had been present case. He owned that he had stated by archbishop Cranmer, and the entertained great scruples respecting it, high court of delegates to the civilians: and thought it might establish a danger-"Utrum, maritus propter adulterium ab ous precedent, if suffered to pass; because, it had not occurred to his mind, that a reconciliation could not legaily take place. Applications for divorce bills had, of late years, been so frequently introduced, that they had been considered almost as mere matters of course. It was highly necessary, therefore, to check their progress, and, if possible, to resist the torrent that threatened to bear down all morality and virtue. With regard to the present bill, his doubts were in a great measure removed; it stood upon strong special grounds and might safely pass.

Lord Auckland said, that the speeches of his learned friend had relieved him from the necessity of attempting to urge arguments which had been stated with infinitely more energy and effect than they could possibly receive from him. But certainly he might claim some merit with their lordships for having prevailed on them, a few days ago, to postpone the debate for the purpose of learning the sentiments of the venerable peer (lord Thurlow) whose

uxore casta possit repudiari?" The ques tion not being revelant to the case in ques tion, received no answer. It has however been,'at all times, the practice of protestant countries to give divorces to women on the same grounds as to men. Such is the practice in Holland and in Scotland; and it did not appear to have been productive of abuse in either country. And in our own ecclesiastical courts, the wife is entitled to claim a divorce à mensâ et thoro in the same manner as the husband. He would admit that, for obvious reasons, conjugal fidelity on the part of the men is less essential to the interests of society than it is on the part of the women. And the general impression of this truth would have its effect in all venial cases. Still, however, it had been urged, that the bill in question, if passed into a law, might open a new door for collusive divorces. It was an unmanly supposition. It seemed to imply that their lordships could not trust themselves with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by the consti

ment respecting a crime of which our favourite poet speaks with just indignation, when he says of it, that it

tution. It betrayed a diffidence in their own wisdom and integrity. He should be sincerely glad to see the dispensation of divorces transferred to a special tribunal; but until such a change could be accomplished, he should examine strictly and separately, every case which might be brought; and his judgment would be decided by the merits or demerits of the proofs which might be adduced. In the present case it appeared in full evidence that a virtuous woman, the petitioner, had been driven from her husband's house by the crime, on his part, of a double and incestuous adultery with her sister, a married woman. It was impossible that any reconciliation could take place. The mind recoiled at the mere suggestion. Would their lordships then say to the petitioner, "if you had committed adultery under circumstances comparatively venial, your husband should have had a divorce; we would have given relief to him; and we would have consigned you to infamy and to beggary. But whatever may be the accumulated criminality on your husband's part, you have recourse to us in vain; we give no relief to the sex most entitled to our protection; you shall either return to the incestuous bed of your husband, or you shall be condemned to penury, to sorrow, and to solitude." Would such language be consonant to our holy religion? Could it be reconciled to any notions of justice? Could it tend to promote the sanctity of marriage and the morals of society? Could it be alleged to carry with it any trace or shadow of a principle? If such a decision should prevail, it would follow, that women could not have the remedy of divorce in any possible case. He had often expressed his objection to parliamentary divorces as being partial, and within the reach of the opulent only. But if the bill in question should be rejected, the partiality of this remedial proceeding would be more gross and objectionable than ever. He again deprecated the notion that a just claim should be put aside, because it might become a precedent for unjust claims. He was, nevertheless, ready to adopt the suggestion of his learned friend, who had remarked that the circumstance of an incestuous adultery, might induce parliament to do what would not be done in a common case. The present bill might be confined to the special case of an incestuous adultery. The distinction would also mark the exemplary sense of parlia

"Makes marriage vows As false as dicers oaths. O! such a deed As from the body of the contract plucks The very soul; and sweet religion makes A rhapsody of words."

The Duke of Clarence owned that his opinion was much altered in consequence of what he had heard; but he must be allowed to have had weighty reasons for what he had felt and expressed, as the same reasons that had impressed his mind had impressed that of the learned lord on the woolsack. He concluded with begging leave to withdraw his motion. The clause was then agreed to.

Debate on Mr. Jones's Motion relative to the Convention for the Evacuation of Egypt.] June 2. Mr. Jones said :—Mr. Speaker; I stand up this day to rescue, if possible, the good faith of the country from the imputation which Europe has thrown out against it. Having given a full and incontrovertible statement of this subject, I shall be very brief this day; and my object will be, to lay bare the present state of Egypt and Europe, since the instructions, given 15th December, 1799, to lord Keith, and then address his majesty to give up the adviser of that fatal measure. Before I proceed farther, I beg to call the attention of the House to the captor of El-Arish, and I am sure that the name of sir John Douglas will be grateful to every British ear. He was sent home as the glorious captor of El Arish, by sir Sidney Smith, to communicate to the ex-ministers the glorious con vention for the total evacuation of Egypt, and which was considered by sir Sidney, and very truly too, a most advantageous circumstance, and which I again call an act of great and grand diplomacy. No man now doubts the powers of sir Sidney. Various excuses have been made by ex ministers on my different motions; but not one that has had the least semblance of reason. If ministers, in 1799, dreaded an invasion of Italy by the French, why did they refuse to treat with the first consul? Besides, by the articles of the convention, the conditions were, that the troops were to return to France. Now, look at the state of Europe since the date of the instructions to break the conven. tion. Our ally, Austria, has made peace; Prussia has seized the electorate of Ha

in any other manner than jointly to the allied powers, whose forces were employed against them; or upon any other terms than that of giving up their arms, and surrendering as prisoners of war to the allied powers so employed; and on no account to consent to the return of 'the French army in Egypt to France, or to

nover, and its treasures; the armed neutrality is not dissolved; indeed, from the present aspect of affairs, I think I may defy the noble lord to say that we are not involved in a Baltic war, and I refer the House to the manifesto of Von der Pahlen tosir Hyde Parker.-Portugal is subsidised, and, perhaps, has sunk under the dominion of the French republic; in conse-their capitulating, excepting on conditions quence of the troops which might have above stipulated;' whereby his faithful defended her being detached to Egypt. Commons humbly conceive that the grand But, what is still worse, our best troops object of peace has been postponed, and are sent to Egypt, when we are in daily the seat of this calamitous, unfortunate, dread of an invasion. England is thus and expensive war, has been transferred stripped of her defence. I hear that to the very distant coasts of Egypt, where 10,000 men are ordered to Egypt. Let there has already been a prodigious exgentlemen only recollect the two last san- penditure of English treasure and of guinary gazettes, and then reflect on the English blood; and this at a time when breach of the convention. A very the hostile preparations in the ports of general murmuring prevails through the France threatened an invasion of these land in consequence; and every village, realms, and when our good and old ally every hamlet, has to lament the loss of Portugal is about to sink under the domisome fellow-subjects and relatives. The nion of the French republic, in conseex-ministers have made Egypt, which quence of that army, which might have was on the point of being the haven defended Portugal, being detached to of peace, the theatre of war; they have Egypt; and moreover, when the dangermade Egypt, which has been called a ous question of the searching neutral land of promise, a house of bondage. ships has raised up a new Baltic war, and But, Sir, what is the situation of our army when Prussia has seized on the electorate at this moment in Egypt? In the first of Hanover and its treasures; and all place, our army is mostly without tents, these unfortunate and alarming circumand without surgeons. Where is the stances, his faithful Commons humbly Suez army, so often said to have arrived conceive, grew out of the breach of the in Egypt? Is it there? The next thing convention of El-Arish; and furthermore, is, our cavalry are mounted at a most ex- with the most loyal attachment and affecpensive rate. It was said, after the battle tionate consideration, his faithful Comof the 21st of March, that Egypt was mons humbly conceive, that by the issuing ours; but as yet we have no such good these said instructions, a dreadful consefortune. At all events, if we should ulti- quence might arise to the Indian empire, mately gain Egypt, the danger and pro- and that it may fall into irretrievable ruin, bable loss of Portugal must not be for- and, in its fall, may crush the credit and gotten. On the determination of the ex- destroy the revenue of this country; minister to absent himself on this occa- whereby, at this alarming crisis, big with sion, I shall only say, in the words of the destinies of the world, the laws of Cicero, "Tandem aliquando vel emisimus humanity and the laws of nations have vel ejecimus, vel ipsum egredientem ex been grossly violated, his majesty's gourbe verbis persecuti sumus." My object vernment degraded, and the policy, chais, to clear the national honour, and character, and faith of this renowned empire racter, and faith, all violated by the breach rendered contemptible in the eyes of all of the convention of El-Arish. I now Europe." move, Sir," That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to communicate to his faithful Commons, by whose advice Instructions dated 15th December, 1799, were given to the commander-in-chief of his majesty's fleet in the Mediterranean, enjoining him not to consent, on any account, to the return of the French army to France, or to their capitulating

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

Lord Hawkesbury said, that the arguments of the hon. gentleman had been so often answered, that he should think he took up the time of the House improperly, if he entered upon the subject, and thereby delayed the House from the consideration of the other important public business which stood for this day. He should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. Windham said, that before the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »