This Act was not long after the Restoration repealed, and in that period they run into the oppofite extreme. If in the reign of Charles the Second, when fo much licentioufnefs was openly encouraged, the examples of divorce were few, it was to be apprehended rather that that proceeded not fo much from fevere laws at the time exifting to punish the crime of adultery, as it was the effect always neceffa rily, and always inevitable of the general diffoluteness of the age, that conftancy to vice, that devotion to impure and illicit pleasures which at once corrupted the heart and depraved the understanding, which taught men how to ridi cule the wholesome institutes of law, and, not even shame being felt, made it almost appear prudifh to name the vir tues. With refpect to what had been faid of the law of Scotland, he would demand it to be proved, that in that country the law really produced the good expected from the prefent Bill. Were the inftances of divorce fewer in Scotland than in England? In their proportion, perhaps it would be found divorces were as often afked for in Scotland as in England. In regard to the idea of its being the exifting law of this country that the woman cannot marry after being divorced, he conceived it to be erroneous; as when the marriage was annulled, there was no legal tie on the conduct of either party in that refpect. His Lordship, after noticing the whole of the general obfervations of the Noble Baron (Auckland), next commented on the speech of Lord Grenville on the fame occafion, and having argued at fome length to fhew what he called the fallacy of the reasonings of the Noble Secretary, he now entered on the discussion of the question immediately before their Lordships. He expreffed himself entirely of the fame opinion with the Illuftrious Duke and the Noble Earl who oppofed the motion, and wondered that it should ever have entered the mind of any Noble Lord to fuppofe that the Bill then before the Houfe would check the vice, which as much as any man he reprobated, but which would be aggravated by increafing its horrors, if the Bill fhould be paffed. Noble Lords appeared to think that the Bill, by enacting a prohibition against the parties marrying, would moft effectually prevent feduction, would increase the difficulty, or rather would render it almost impoffible to carry on fuccefsfully the bufinefs of feduction. They knew little of the world, and of human nature, fuch as practically it is, who thought this, The Reverend and Learned Prelates would forgive him, if he must take it for granted that he knew rather more of the

gay

gay and the fashionable world, its cuftoms, its frivolities, its purfuits, its pleasures, than they did. It was natural his knowledge in this refpect should be greater, for his opportunities of acquiring it were certainly more numerous. Now from all he knew of the habits of a fashionable and accomplished feducer, a character he only studied to deteft, it certainly was not in the ftile of fuch a perfon, it did not at all accord with his manner, to begin by fuggefting clumfily, that the difficulties in the way of marriage were great or few; that marriage would be the reward of compliance, the ultimate confummation of illicit love. No! fuch a man knew better how to approach the citadel of honour, and lay fiege to unfufpecting virtue. His manners would be eafy, full of grace, marked by peculiar and minute attentions, rich in exquifite fenfibility, patient of reproof, but vigilant to difcover the almost evanefcent changes of afpect, of tone, or of deportment; turning all to ultimate advantage, by appearing to admire that referve and fimplicity which, though the interesting traces of a polifhed and virtuous education, yet were in fact the most powerful incentives to love, because they threw around beauty that luftre which was to fascinate and lead captive the firmeft and the proudest fpirit. Such, or fimilar to these would be the feelings, the language, and the arts of an accomplished feducer. The prefent Bill would only add to the dexterity of the libertine, it would not act as a difcouragement to purfue the vice. Here, his Lordship dwelt with much eloquence on the miferable, forfaken, and unprotected condition of a female, who, if the Bill fhould pafs, inftead of being, as formerly, at liberty to marry her feducer, would be placed in the fituation fo juftly mentioned by the Royal Duke, a fituation of ignominy too humiliating for any mind, but most of all to the mind of a woman of education, and whofe place had always been the firft circles of fociety. The offspring of her illicit connection too, would be alfo treated with cruelty; that offspring which partook, not of the crime of its parents, but which was to fuffer for it, if the present measure should be adopted. Here the Noble Earl made feveral general obfervations on the conduct of parties, adding, that much, and heartily as he deplored the existence of the vice, yet as there were he believed fome who, imprudent in the first instance, would make the unfortunate female that only reparation fhe could receive for violated virtue, namely, the marrying her, he must think a measure which could deny her that alternative, which was to give poignancy

poignancy to forrow, and not to render penitence perma nent, fuch a meafure would be as cruel as impolitic and therefore not calculated to check and extirpate the vice. Here the Noble Lord referred to the annals of the hiftory of Charles II. and commented on the examples from that hiftory of the profligacy of the court, and of the fewness of divorces, ftated by Lord Auckland, which he (Lord Mulgrave) did not agree in. Reverting to what he faid of the arts of feduction, his Lordfhip begged that Noble Lords would reflect on the ftate of fociety-that they would not be hurried away by idle vifions of improvements in morals by Bills which only tended to increase private forrow, which, in fact by putting it out of the power of the feducer to marry, furnished to the thoroughly bafe, that as a pretext, while the man of honour (for it was honourable to protect, though it was criminal to feduce) could not marry. He repeated it, it was in vain to fuppofe that a feducer would begin his attack would open the trenches by raifing alarms as to confequences-or if he did, he must speedily raise the fiege. To come closer to the point, he would ask their Lordships, were they prepared to pafs an act reftraining both parties, the feducer and the feduced? Such a step might have fome good effect, and were it propofed, he would fupport it. The question was an important one, when the public morals were defcribed to be in fuch a deplorable ftate. However in this he could not agree, nor above all, that the multiplicity of divorces was a proof of their being fo. Let the fituation of other countries (not France), but where the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, and compare the circumftances of the married part of fociety in thofe countries and in England. After the birth of two or three fons, when the fear of introducing a fpurious iffue to the inheritance of his estate and title had ceafed to operate the husband never failed to take fome opera-dancer or finger into keeping; and the wife immediately fingled out her paramours. This criminal courfe was purfued without ever disturbing their domeftic tranquility, or producing bills of divorce. But it was becaufe this fyftem was not known here; it was because domestic virtue and happiness was a prevailing character in the country that any exception was fo ftrongly marked and pointed out to public fcorn, But what would the fupporters of the Bill fay of the morals of the people when they were apprised that the measure in queftion would not apply to the bulk at all-they were be low its operation; the great and rich, from the nature of

the

the case, could not only be the objects of it? But how could the morals of all the lower claffes be amended by it? fhoemakers, taylors, coblers, and the like; they had their mode of feparation-putting a rope about their wife's neck, and parting with her at the next place of fale, and, perhaps, get eighteen pence for his bargain. His Lordship drawing to a conclufion, recapitulated a few of his hiftorical references, and reafonings upon them; and with the view to imprefs that the increase of Divorces was not an adequate proof of a proportionate increase of the crime of adultery; and he pointed out fome of the latter parts of the Bill, which he cenfured as inconfiftent, or at least unneceffary; and declared, that as his fentiments upon the measure were not the leaft altered, but that his feelings were more alive than ever to the pernicious confequences which he was certain must refult from its adoption, he would certainly vote against the Bill.

Lord Auckland faid that the Noble Lords who had done him the honour to answer his fpeech upon this fubject on a former night, point after point, had rendered it neceffary that he fhould fay a few words now; for he did not think it would be proper that he should poftpone the matter until after the holidays; because the obfervations he had to anfwer, were eafily anfwered; for the Noble Lords who had oppofed him, had dwelt on points that were the least relevant, and had taken little notice of the great point he had brought forward, namely, the great increase of adultery: it was indeed hinted that adultery had not much increased, and that made it neceffary that he fhould fhew how far this was accurately stated by him on a former day. It appeared on au̟thority that could not be doubted, that there were but fix cafes in several hundred years; and another authority stated that not above three of them occurred for another long period; this his Lordfhip faid, he stated to fhew he was not inaccurate when he had formerly faid, that the cafes of adultery were very rare in the early periods of our history. He would not detain their Lordships in going over all the obfervations of the illuftrious Duke and the Noble Lord who followed him, but fhould merely advert to a few points. The first objection, if well founded, would be to his feelings a very strong one, that a perfon who purfues the line of life which leads to the feduction of females, would have a faci lity in his conduct by this Bill, that is, he should be relieved from the tie of marrying the woman whom he had feduced; but this was not the effect intended; for the ob

jec

ject was to check the crime by holding out that the parties committing the adultery could not intermarry with each other; and he hoped it would have that effect. But it was ftated that this would be diftreffing on honourable men. These adulterers were all honourable men, and the whole courfe of the arguments against this Bill went to establish that idea; how correct an idea it was, he left for their Lordships to determine. Certainly this was the age of improvement as fome thought, but, as he moft deeply lamented, rather a refinement in vice than any approach to ftability in virtue. The honourable seducer was to marry the honourable feduced, and that crime which formerly, in the good old times of English rufticity, was execrated, is now to be exalted to a diftinguished place among the undoubted cha racteristics of modern honour. The next point was, that the poor unfortunate woman was to be much oppreffed, and the Noble Lord who had juft fat down, had fpoken of married women, as if they were the only part of that fex who suffered for their gallantry; but the fact was known to be otherwise. On what ground could it be contended that a married woman with all her experience, fhould merit to be placed in a better fituation than a young girl? and it was well known, that in the cafe of feduced females of the latter defcription, there was not one inftance in forty, where their betrayers married them. Who were thefe married women who were thus the fubject of fo much compaffion? They were to be found generally in the higheft claffes of life, whofe education taught them that they ought to fet a good example, as parents perhaps, and that nothing was fo valuable as virtue.

His Lordship obferved, that if these maxims of virtue were right for one clafs, they were right for all claffes; and he could not help faying that much of what he had heard from the Noble Lord, had a great tendency to fupporting French principles; indeed this night his Lordfhip feemed to him to have galloped over thefe principles; and now that the fubject of French principles was prefented to his view, he was tempted to ftate fhortly the effect of them as they appeared in French morals, and this he did from the autho rity of a person who might be depended upon in this parti cular. That perfon ftated an account of French adultery and its effects, under what he called the anarchy of mar riage, and he faid that within these feven years there had been in France no less than 20,000 divorces. This was thewing plainly that this fyftem was hoftile to population,

and