The Lord Steward. February 19. The Lord Steward reported to the Houfe, that pursuant to their order of Monday laft, the Lords with white ftaves had waited on his Majefty to know when he would be attended by this House with their Addrefs, and his Majesty appointed this day at two o'clock, at St. James's. Their Lordships then went to St. James's, and prefented the Addrefs. February 20. The Lord Chancellor reported his Majefty's moft gracious Answer to the Addrefs of the House, which was as follows: "My Lords, "I RECEIVE with pieafure this dutiful Addrefs, and have great fatisfaction in obferving that the Preliminary and Provifional Articles appear to you, as they do to me, to afford a reasonable profpect of fuch a Peace as will relieve my people from any burthens beyond what the expences of the war have rendered unavoidable, and, if properly improved, will enfure the national profperity. These are always objects next my heart, and every measure which has the tendency to promote them, cannot but be acceptable to me. It is my firm purpose to execute every article of the Trea ties on my part, with that good faith which has ever diftinguifhed the conduct of this nation. "I concur with you moft entirely on the juft expectation you entertain of the like attention in North America, to the ftipulations in favour of the unfortunate fufferers by the war, which are founded in humanity and justice, and now recognised by public engagement. I do not entertain a doubt that this and every other article in the Treaties depending, will be finally fettled and performed by the other Powers with that spirit of liberality and juftice which be comes them." No bufinefs till February 27. The House refolved itself into a committee on Williams's divorce bill, Lord Scarfdale in the chair, when, after a good deal of converfation on the fubject, the Earl of Radnor Fofe to fupport the claufe for baftardizing the children; which which the Lord Chancellor ftrenuously contended should be rejected. The arguments urged by Lord Radnor why the claufe fhould be retained, were principally thefe: that from the circumstances which appeared, there could not be the smallest doubt of the illegitimacy of the children; and therefore their Lordships, in conformity with their former practice, were bound to decide in this cafe. If they adopted a different conduct on this occafion, they would lie under the imputation of partiality, and of having made an invidious diftinction; becaufe, was this a matter in which any of the nobility of this country was concerned, they would at once, when the teftimony was fo clear, determine the point, to preferve the purity of blood, and defend the rights of families. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would agree with him in the neceffity of preferving the claufe. The Lord Chancellor faid, their Lordships fhould ever The Lord make a proper difcrimination between their legiflative and Chancellor judicial capacities, in cafes fimilar to the prefent. In this inftance, if they permitted the claufe to continue, they very improperly, in his opinion, would blend both together. He contended they were going to decide private right on ex parte evidence. Thus perfons who were to be baftardized, were not heard in their defence; there was therefore a poffibility that the proof which now convinced their Lordships of their illegitimacy might be overturned, had they an opportunity or a capacity of defending themfelves, and on the principle that there was a poffibility of the children establifhing their rights, they could not be precluded from availing themselves of it without manifeft injuftice. Befides, their Lordships fhould confider that the vote they were going to give to-day, would not be confined to this particular inftance, but extend to all cafes of the fame nature whatever. Suppofe a bill was brought, in order to prove the illegitimacy of any perfon, and of confequence to bastardize him, would your Lordships, fays he, entertain such a bill? Moft undoubtedly you would not. Why then, I would ask, fhould you decide here, and declare the children to be battards, when the matter is as inapplicable to adultery, on account of which, the bill was brought in, as it is to murder? Surely to punish innocent infants for crimes they were incapable of being parties to, was not confonant to reafon or humanity. His Lordship wifhed that there was fome judicial court eftablished by act of Parliament, in which proper powers might be vefted to grant a divorce, e vinculo matri monii Lord Afhburton. Lord Afhburton. minii; for as the law now ftood, a divorce could be obtained in Doctors Commons only, a menfa et thoro. In fuch an act, crimes of this fort might be defined with fuch precifion, that all ranks of people could at once know the magnitude of their offences, and the confequences that would refult from them. It would prevent collufions between the parties, as, for many forcible reafons, courts of juftice could come at the truth better than this Houfe, from the nature of its conftitution. How frequently have your Lordships feen large and ample fettlements made on a wife to prevail on her to join in the collufion? What advantages have there not been held out by women of large fortunes in their own right, to get rid of difagreeable and odious hufbands. I am always anxious to discountenance fuch infamous practices, because they may prove injurious to a harmless offspring, who were not capable of being parties to fuch abominable bargains. I fhall conclude, faid his Lordfhip, with imploring your Lordships not to establish fo dangerous a precedent as this claufe tends to make, for you should reflect, that what is granted in one inftance, cannot be refused in another of a like principle, and that the refolution you may now come to, will extend farther than you are aware of. Lord Afbburton faid a few words in reply, and fupported the claufe; as did alfo the Duke of Richmond. The Houfe divided, when there appeared, contents for the claufe, 6; non contents, 9. A motion was then made, that the bill fhould be farther confidered on Monday, when the Houfe divided again. Contents, 9; non contents 7. Adjourned to Monday. March 4. Their Lordships were fummoned to take into their farther confideration Williams's divorce bill on this day, when, as foon as they were met, Lord Ahburton rofe, and after a few prefatory words expreffive of the humane neceffity of a motion he was about to make, fubftantially moved that, after the recital in the bill, that mentioned the provifion that the young children. of the marriage were to have, a claufe fhould be inferted, purporting, that the children born subsequent to the deed of feparation between the parties, which had been produced in evidence at their Lordships bar, fhould be intitled to fuch provifion, provifion, unless they should prove the legitimacy of their birth. As foon as the clerk had read the motion, The Lord Chancellor got up, and obferved, that, in his The Lord opinion, the matter now offered to their Lordĺhips confider- Chancellor. ation, had been agitated on the day they laft met. The House had then declared its opinion, that it would be improper to decide upon a queftion which did not come equitably or legally before them. The queftion of divorce was before them, and the queftion of divorce only. The queftion of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the offspring of the marriage, was as much coram non judice as any extraneous matter that it was poffible for the wit of man to conceive, and of course, every thing touching on that point was at prefent unfit for the difcuffion of their Lordships, either collaterally or incidentally. Viewing the motion in this light, he must confequently deem it nugatory. But he would fuppofe for a moment that it was not fo. He would fuppofe that their Lordships had not already decided the business. What were they now befought to do? Was it to interfere in a matter to decide which, there was no law of the land entirely competent? No; the interpofition of the Houfe was called for, when there were tribunals exifting fully adequate to the cognizance of the affairs of that nature. His Lordfhip faid he was not fond of troubling the House with the repetition of old arguments, but should reft his objection to the motion chiefly on this principle-a principle, which wifely obtained at this moment, not only here but over all Europe, "No court of juftice is competent to decide upon the right of a party who is not properly before it." Is the party, faid the Chancellor, whom your Lordfhips are defired by this motion to thrust out of the protection of this wife and humane principle, now properly-now at all before you. The infant is not. On the contrary, though there be no pofitive proof of a collufion to undermine his helpless interefts, I maintain it, that there is full evidence before your Lordships to pronounce that these interefts are not defended as they ought to be. In fact, they are abandoned. The mother is ferved with a bill, fetting forth, that among other things, fhe is to have a separate maintenance of 150l. a-year on a divorce e vinculo matrimonii taking place, and fhe is warned to appear, if the thinks fit, and oppose this bill. Does fhe oppofe it? No; but the fends an attorney here, to acknowledge that the figned the deed Lord Afhburton. . deed of feparation which provided her this maintenance. What the woman's inducements, befides the annuity I have now mentioned, could be for abandoning her own and her child's character, are not now before your Lordships, nor perhaps ever will. All on this head is conjecture. In this obfcurity, however, it is fair for us to think, that the who facrificed her own honour to the lewdnefs of his temper, will make little fcruple of immolating her child's fame and fortune at the fame frantic fhrine. In a word, my Lords, while there are tribunals in this land equal to the diftribution of juftice in cafes like the prefent, I cannot, confiftent with my confcience, vote that this Houfe fhall unneceffarily take the business out of their jurisdictions, and I must therefore express my difapprobation of the motion. We ought not to throw the onus probandi of his legitimacy on the infant. The law of the land does not do fo. Lord Ashburton argued, that no collufion appeared on the evidence produced to fupport the bill, but he did not conceive that evidence of collufion was a reason why a bill of divorce should not pafs. Collufion might be honourable. A criminal woman owed the reparation to her injured and abused husband, of furnishing the evidence neceflary to his relief. It was all that after the violation of her facred vows fhe could do. Here, however, there was no proof of collufion. It was true, the woman did not appear to oppofe it, and why? She was confcious of the bafenefs of her conduct, and could not therefore attempt to vindicate or palliate it; of courfe, all that could be done was to confefs the fignature of the articles of feparation; one of the witneffes to which did fo, and the other witnesses would alfo have appeared for the fame purpofe; but one of them was then in France, and the other was an apothecary of great bufinefs in the country, which he could not, without vaft detriment to himself and his cuftomers, omit attending, though but for a day. He faid, it would be a very great hardship in a cafe fo clear, if, at a distance of twenty years, the onus probandi, in regard to the baftardy of the iffue, which was now fo evident, fhould then lie upon the unhappy man who had been fo difhonoured by his wife; he muft therefore, notwithstanding the great ability in argument difplayed by the learned Lord, ftill adhere to his former opinion, and deem the claufe he wished to introduce into the bill not only a juft but a humane one. 4 One |