Debate in the Commons on the demeanor, he was decidedly of opinion The Master of the Rolls said, that the [320 riage was illegal, and he was sorry that such a question ever had arisen. If any doubts were entertained, he would be happy in concurring in any measure for removing them. At present, a man might husband, and the mother of a numerous pay his addresses to the wife of a virtuous family, with equal confidence as if he were addressing a young lady who never had been married. Many other evils might be mentioned; but these were sufficient to prove the inefficacy of the present laws. The provisions of the bill abuses. were well calculated to correct these for the consideration of the House was, Mr. Wilberforce said, that the question whether the crime of adultery had arisen to such a height as to require legislative provision? It could not be denied, that it was a crime which attacked the first germ of civil society. The Author of our holy religion had denounced it, and had dwelt upon it more particularly than upon any other. Marriage was by no means merely a civil contract: the state had a it should be contracted; but it was sanctiright to prescribe the ceremonies by which fied by religion, and was on that account more holy, and ought to be more indissoluble. No institution had been devised so well calculated to promote the happiness of man, and it ought to be regarded with the greatest reverence. In this light it could not long be viewed, if the present system were continued. Could it be a question, whether that should be made a crime in the code of English laws, which hue?-If he understood the lawyers right, was already a moral offence of so deep a there was not at present any penalty annexed to this crime. stated, that although there was no direct But it had been penalty, yet there was one practically, because the adulterer paid in damages to the husband what amounted to a heavy penalty. This circumstance was with him one great argument in favour of the bill, because he considered it improper that a penalty for a public offence should be paid in the shape of damages to an individual. consummated, yet where no penalty in A case might exist where the crime was damages could be inflicted. Suppose the case of a negligent and indifferent husband, ill-treating an amiable wife, while she was endeavouring, by the most persuasive of all eloquence, or continued love and kindness, to reclaim him: suppose, then, that an artful seducer should step is between her and the accomplishment of this desired object, and, by aggravating every fault of her husband, should induce her to deviate from the paths of virtue. Would any one say, that this was not the most guilty of mortals ? Yet, should the husband bring an action against him, it would be said with justice, that the plaintiff was a careless, debauched, and profligate scoundrel, and that he ought to be non-suited. He could with ease statę many other cases, where there was a loud call for punishment, yet where to give damages would be improper. We were now exactly in that state when a bill of this nature was necessary, and if we delayed much longer, it would be altogether ineffectual to stem the torrent of corruption. The principles of the people were still good, though their practices were beginning to be very immoral; and it was well known, that bad habits would ruin the best principles. Our wealth had greatly increased, and had occasioned a corresponding increase of luxury, directly tending to introduce licentiousness of manners, and some regulations were indispensably necessary to counteract this tendency. The science of morals was better understood than in any former age, and propriety of character was more accurately marked; but it by no means followed, that our actions were correspondingly laudable. Morals were formerly founded on religion; but the morality of the present day seemed to consist in a decorum of deportment, founded rather on the consideration of character than of religion. He would not deny but that in the reign of Charles 2nd there existed a most licentious court; and he could not omit this occasion of paying a just tribute of applause to the bright example which was exhibited by the court of the present day, and which, he was convinced, tended more than any circumstance to produce that moral decency so characteristic of these times. He therefore thought the present the proper time to pass the bill before the House. He thought the proposed punishment by no means too severe. Hitherto, the adulteress had been rewarded for her breach of the marriage vow, and there were many reasons why the intermarriage of the parties should be prohibited. It was the duty of legislatures to enact laws the best calculated to promote the present happiness of mankind. Even in this point of view it was very shortsighted to allow an opiate to be adminis [VOL. XXXV.] tered to the woman who had been guilty of such a crime, and to allow her to return to society to indulge in luxury and licentiousness, and to corrupt those around her by precept and example. He was greatly alarmed when he heard honour spoken of as contra-distinguished from honesty. This was false honour, the most dangerous of all principles. Against such principles he entered his strongest protest. It had been stated, that if the bill should pass, the number of adulteries would be increased, as the debauchee would then be more ready to prey upon the spoils of innocence, when there was no possibility of his being obliged to marry the woman he had seduced. He himself did not believe that the human heart could be so hardened, nor the moral principle so debased. But would not the removal of this restraint be more than counterbalanced by the ignominy which would attach upon the seducer, and the punishment he must expect to undergo? He would gladly give his vote for going into a committee. He considered this subject of much more importance than any question about peace or war, or any constitutional question; for, although the latter might have some remote influence on the comforts of families, yet the question then before the House went to the inmost recesses of domestic happiness; to the very foundations of civil society; and if the crime was suffered to go on unchecked, nothing could have a greater tendency to destroy the whole fabric of society. Sir Francis Burdett Jones said, that the person convicted of adultery was already punished severely, by the monstrous and vindictive damages awarded against him. When this had not operated as a prevention of the crime, how could a punishment still more severe be expected to effect it? It had not been made out, that the state of the morals of this country required any such expedient. Adultery was not an increasing evil; and even if it were, he would object to all legislative interference; as every endeavour to strengthen the bonds of matrimony, and to draw them tighter, only weakened and rendered more uncertain, that connexion which ought to depend on far other securities. This bill, instead of answering its professed purposes, would tend to prevent matrimony, by surrounding that state with consequences and penalties altogether disgusting. The more a woman was put under legal restraint, the more unamiable must [Y] the husband appear for whose sake the laws were enacted. Statutes might surround, but they could not protect the virtue of women. No man could suppose, if the present bill were passed into a law, that the crime of adultery would be prevented. Secrecy would be substituted in the place of reformation; and the law meant to better, would only undermine public morality. As a punishment, the provisions of the bill were totally inadequate. The clause which constituted adultery a misdemeanor, did not prevent that collusion from taking place which would render the law ineffectual. A per son might make it worth the while of another to undergo the charge of adultery, and thereby accomplish what the bill was meant to prevent. The bill would open a door for fraud, instead of preventing ruin, and would make man and wife voluntary evidences against each other. Another objection to the bill was, the discretionary power it put into the hands of judges. Discretion did not always mean what was understood by it in a popular sense. Discretion in law was limited by precedent; but, in the case of adultery, there would be no limits, no landmark, by which the decisions of justice could be regulated. If the marriage of the offending parties was prevented, they would, in many instances, continue to live with each other on terms less honourable, and more injurious to society. A liberalminded man, not able to make the best atonement to the victim of his illicit enjoyments, would nevertheless not consign her to irretrieveable reproach. The case would then be, that women, respectable for other virtues than those of the strictest chastity, would, by the splendor of their talents and accomplishments, form a third class in society, between the abandoned and the virtuous, not undeserving the notice and commendation of the world. This circumstance, above all others, would tend to confound the idea of right and wrong, and would be the probable result of this bill. In most cases, the cause of adultery originated in the husband, and not the woman; but the punishment annexed to the crime chiefly applied to the woman, which could not be just. It was not an instructive sight to the young, to behold women possessed of a considerable share of respectability living with men without the sanction of marriage. This, however, would be one of the consequences of the bill. To marry the per son with whom she had offended, and to behave well in a new connexion, was the only mode by which an unfortunate female could hope to recover her lost reputation. It was idle to think of excluding amiable and accomplished women from society. If they were not allowed to reappear as the wives of their seducers, they would certainly re-appear in a worse character, and would do infinitely more mischief. It was far from true, that a woman did not now, in any degree, deteriorate her situation by being guilty of infidelity, provided she married her betrayer. Did she not lose the society of her friends, the esteem of her family, the affection of her children, the consciousness of rectitude? Were these deprivations not a severe punishment for her offence? In fine, as no benefit would be produced by the bill, as it would be the occasion of many evils, and as it was altogether inadequate to the ends it had in view, it had his most strenuous opposition. Sir Ralph Milbank said, that the system now proposed was harsh and unfeeling. It tended to cast a frail, unprotected woman on the mercy of the world, and to shut her out from all decent society. In such uncalled-for severity, he could not acquiesce, especially as he could not see that the evil was increasing. Never would he consent to alter the mild spirit of the law of England, unless such alteration was called for by imperious neces sity. Mr. Bastard was against leaving it to the caprice of an individual to punish the crime of adultery, if it was to be made liable to severer punishment. The clause for preventing the parties from marrying was altogether nugatory. be fewer examples of adultery, if the offending parties were compelled to marry. Sir G. P. Turner said, that if the abominable clause stood part of the bill, it would increase and not prevent the mischief complained of. Laws were intended more to prevent than to punish crimes; but when he saw enactments so cruel and so peculiarly oppressive to those from whom every human being derived his existence, he could not but object to them. If the crime of adultery required any punishment for its prevention, a better one could not be found than making the adulterer marry her whom he had seduced. If the adulteress was not suffered to marry her seducer, she would be cast out into the streets. day three months, resolve itself into the said committee. Mr. Abbot's Bill for charging Public Accountants with the Payment of Interest.] May 19. Mr. Abbot rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "for the more effectually charging Public Accountants with the Payment of Interest." He contended, that the general policy and justice of such a measure were unquestionable, upon this ground, that persons who stand in the situation of public accountants should be charged with interest upon the monies which they owe to the public, in as much as the public itself might derive interest from the use of those monies if paid when due. That in former times, when the pressure of public burthens had called the attention of parliament to these matters, the principle, such as he now stated it, had been expressly recognized and enforced; and particularly during the wars of king William and queen Anne, laws were repeatedly passed to prevent a practice which obtained to a great extent, according to the then course of the exchequer, and it was provided by parliament that interest should be charged upon all Exchequer orders and tallies Mr. Sheridan said, that the crime of adultery, so far from having increased, had been proved to have diminished. But, says an hon. gentleman, it is not proper that the crime should exist at all: true; but those who argued in favour of the bill, should show, that what they proposed to remove had not operated as a check upon the commission of the crime. This substituted law of honour, which induced the man to marry the woman he had seduced, had been strongly inveighed against; but he desired those who so in veighed against it, to show whether it had not been one of the causes of the crime having diminished. Would the removal of this law decrease it? What he complained of most was, that what was now proposed was all matter of experiment. Such a proposition, when the crime had been proved to be diminishing, was, to say the least of it, extremely desperate. Was it not true, that the women of this country were never more correct in their conduct than at present? If that was the case, was it a slight thing to throw out this unmannerly and unmanly slander upon the morality of the country? A learned gentleman had talked of exemplary damages being given. To talk of exemplary damages in civil actions, was talking ex-issued for army or navy services, from the emplary nonsense. Who told juries that they were to be the custodes morum? The man who stated this doctrine was responsible for the effect it produced. A judge might think it proper to tell a jury, that twenty thousand pounds, that a whole fortune was not sufficient to repair the injury a husband had sustained: a jury, however, might think otherwise, and only give two. The same man might afterwards, by the present bill, come before the same judge, who might deem it to be his duty to make up for this sup. posed deficiency on the part of the juries; and this was one of the evils which this bill tended to produce. The bill was unnecessary, and he hoped it would not be suffered to proceed to another discussion. The question being put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: time of their being intrusted until the period of their being actually disbursed. During the present reign an end had been put to that particular species of abuse, by transferring these issues from the private custody of the treasurer of the navy and the paymaster-general of the forces, and lodging their amount in the Bank of England. But another very flagrant abuse had since sprung up, which called loudly for redress, namely, the long detention of large balances by public accountants after their employments had ceased, and their accounts were closed. Upon this head the law at present was extremely defective; for although it was undoubtedly true that in some instances the claim of interest had been maintained on the part of the crown, where it could be proved that the party had put the public monies out at interest for his own personal emolument, and although the same right had been also enforced upon the submission of a party to pay interest, yet neither in these nor in any other cases could this right be established or prosecuted with effect without a particular suit by special informa tion in such individual case.-In order, therefore, to render the operation of the Mr. Abbot's Bill for charging law more extensive, effectual and expeditious in all cases, and to prevent any occasional hardship which might arise from enforcing this claim unexpectedly, it became necessary to enact some general and explicit regulations, prescribing the time, mode, and rate according to which interest should be charged: that it was not proposed by any means to apply these regulations to current balances upon any open, unsettled, ordinary account, all of which might better be left to the vigilance of the different boards under whose control they now are that in general those balances appeared to be restrained already within moderate and reasonable limits; and although, in some few instances, such as the revenues collected in Scotland, and the stamp duties in England (an establishment which required in many respects to be thoroughly visited), these balances might appear to have run to excess, yet he hoped it would be found by the treasury returns respecting their further proceedings upon the finance reports, that steps han been taken to curtail these balances; and at all events it was his intention to keep this object within the view of parliament, by calling annually for accounts of this class and description of balances. The measure now offered was to apply only to balances resulting from settled and final accounts, comprising all cases, however, where they had accumulated, either in the hands of persons employed to collect the revenue, or to disburse the issues intrusted to them for the public service. The regulations would be confined to three points. The first of them would be to adopt in the Exchequer the same rule of justice between the subject and the crown as is now administered by all courts between subject and subject; and in striking the balance due from the accountant, to add to the principal debt the amount of such interest as he has actually made or may be presumed to have made upon the sum in which he stands indebted. The second would be, to give an opportunity to the party to dispute the charge for interest (if he thinks fit) in the same way which he may now take to dispute the principal debt; providing, however, that immediate interest should run against his account, pending the litigation, in order that he may not derive a profit by his own act in interposing this delay. The third point would be, to make the total amount of the debt for principal and interest, when finally established and de [$28 |clared, carry interest until the time of its past upon such debts as were already esfinal liquidation. As to interest for time tablished, he had nothing to propose; those cases might be left to the law as it now stands, and he neither used them or referred to them otherwise than as warnings for the House to provide more effectually against their recurrence in time to would be prospective for the payment of come; the whole operation of this bill such interest only as should accrue henceforth.-From these regulations many beneficial consequences might be confidently expected. expenditure of the public money would be Persons interested with the less eager during the continuance of their employment to draw it unnecessarily into their own hands, if they foresaw that such interest for what they might draw beyond a practice would tend to load them with vice: that at the close of their employthe real or apparent exigency of the serment the actual amount of the interest lost to the public by their misconduct or rapacity would be demandable in all cases, and in many would be actually refunded: that a still more important effect would be produced during the discussion of the account, by taking from the party the direct motive which he now has to procrastinate its final settlement; and that, by thus accelerating the settlement, the public would it is now exposed, of suffering by the ultino longer incur the same hazard to which mate insolvency of the party, or the dissiof these abuses, which it was thus propation of his property by his heirs. None posed to counteract, could be deemed imaginary evils; for there was no man in any degree conversant with public affairs, who could not from his own observation or memory supply many striking instances in which they have been realized, to the detriment of the public always, and not unfrequently involving also the delinquents themselves and their families in distress and irretrievable ruin.-In addition to these considerations, there was another to which he desired to call the attention of the House, by remarking upon the state of the accounts now depending before the commissioners for auditing the public accounts, amongst which there were very few hitherto delivered respecting the experditure of the present war, and amongst these few there were some of an immense extent and amount. That goyel vernment had done well during the present war in following the recommendation |