150] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



was, that the adulterer should not 

 marry the adulteress. 



This bill was one of the most 

 strongly contested in this session. 

 The opponents, as well as the sup- 

 porters of the bill, were friends to 

 religion and morality, and regret- 

 ted and deplored the prevalence 

 of adultery; a crime which cer- 

 tainly tended to cut up society, as 

 it were, by the roots : but they 

 did not think that crimes, in ge- 

 neral, were to be prevented by the 

 excessive severity of punishment. — 

 The punishment intended by this 

 bill, against the adulteress, was too 

 severe ; it would drive her to des- 

 peration and unrestrained licen- 

 tiousness : nor would it act as a dis- 

 couragement to pursue the vice, but 

 fui'nish new materials to the dex- 

 terity of an accomplished seducer. 

 The peer who took the lead in an 

 opposition to this bill was the duke 

 of Clarence, who, on the fourth of 

 April, the day of the second read- 

 ing, reasoned against it with great 

 perspicuityofjudgement and fluency 

 of diction, chiefly from its inhuman 

 tendency to aggravate the horrors 

 of the weaker and seduced party, 

 and from its inefficacy to prevent 

 the crime against which it was le- 

 velled. His royal highness concluded 

 with moving that the bill be read 

 again " that day four months." 



The bishop of London, compli- 

 mented the illustrious duke on 

 the honourable and eloquent man- 

 ner in which he had stated his 

 reasons for objecting to the bill. 

 This, however, in bishop Porteus's 

 opinion, though it would not put a 

 stop to the career of adultery, would 

 do good to a certain extent. The 

 bishop of London was joined in 

 opinion by the bishops of Durham 

 and Rochester, and the other bi- 

 shops present : and lord Auckland's 



motion was supported, not only 

 by the bishops but by lord Eldon, 

 the earl of Carnarvon, lord Gren- 

 ville, and the lord chancellor. The 

 duke of Clarence was supported in 

 his opposition to the bill, and with 

 great ability, by the lords Guilford 

 and Mulgrave. The bishop of Ro- 

 chester expatiated at great length 

 on the former practice of punishing 

 adultery with death. Yet he de- 

 clared that it was not his wish to 

 restore the punishment of adultery 

 by death. The Scripture, in one 

 part, sanctioned that doctrine ; 

 thouffh, in another, it allowed that 

 in some cases a man might put away 

 his wife. The bishop, however, 

 contended that there were strong 

 arguments to be found in Scripture 

 for not allowing in any case the 

 unloosing of the marriage vow. It 

 was no light matter to violate a so- 

 lemn contract at the altar. 



Lord Guildford said, he had read 

 in a certain book of a Magdalen, 

 an adulteress, receiving favour and 

 pardon on due repentance. He 

 did not admire those doctrines 

 that cut off' the possibility of all re- 

 turn to virtue and to society. Lord 

 Grenville declared that he consi- 

 dered appeals to the compassion 

 of the legislature, in favour of the 

 adulteress, would be equally appli- 

 cable in favour of the convicted 

 murderer, highwayman, house- 

 breaker, and all the perpetrators of 

 crimes of the most base and vile 

 description. On a division of the 

 house, the question, for the second 

 reading of the bill, was carried by 

 SO against 11. 



On the sixteenth of May, the 

 order of the day, respecting the 

 commitment of the adultery-bill, 

 being read, lord Auckland said, 

 that the bill, on consideration, was 

 found to be very defective, and 



