HISTORY OF EUROPE. [151 



therefore, it was his intention to 

 abandon it, in order to introduce 

 another bill more effectual. He 

 moved to have this new bill read a 

 first time and prin ted. 1 1 was a bill 

 for punishing, and also for more ef- 

 fectually preventing the crime of 

 adulter)'. It differed from the for- 

 mer bill, by having a new clause, 

 " to make persons, guilty of adul- 

 tery, liable to be punished by fine 

 and imprisonment, as in cases of 

 misdemeanor." On the motion for 

 the new bill being printed, a very 

 long debate arose on its general me- 

 rits, in which the duke of Clarence, 

 the earl of Moira, the earl of Guild- 

 ford, the earl of Carlisle, the earl of 

 Kinnoull, lord Bulkeley, and the 

 earl of Mulgrave were arranged in 

 opposition to the bill ; lord Auck- 

 land, lord Eldon, the bishop of Ro- 

 chester, the bishop of Durham, the 

 bishop of London, lord Hobart, 

 and lord Grenville, in its defence. 

 Lord Moira and other lords depre- 

 cated all farther proceedings on the 

 bill, which was not calculated to 

 produce any good, but would be 

 heaping coals of fire on the head of 

 the unhappy woman who might be- 

 come the victim of the seducing arts 

 of her betrayer, and also bring much 

 misery and disgrace on innocent fe- 

 male children. 



The only objection the bishop of 

 London had to the bill was, that it 

 was not severe enough. Bishop 

 Porteus deprecated all sentiments of 

 an irrational humanity and tender- 

 ness; which, if indulged, might ob- 

 struct, on many occasions, the salu- 

 tary, though severe, execution of 

 justice. 



Lord Grenville said, that the only 

 argument of any weight that he 

 had heard urged, of prohibiting the 

 intermarriage of the adulteress with 



herseducer, was, thatonebar would 

 be removed from men of gallantry 

 pursuing their unlawful designs, as, 

 at present, they were afraid lest 

 they should be obliged to choose, 

 as their companions for life, those 

 women whom they had polluted and 

 disgraced ; but, though more dis- 

 posed to storm the citadel of virtue, 

 they would find conquest much more 

 difficult. But the propriety of the 

 bill was argued, not only on the 

 ground of morality and policy, but, 

 more keenly, on that of religion. 



The bishop of Rochester asserted, 

 and insisted, that a woman divorced, 

 a vinculo mnlrimoriii, committed 

 adultery, let her marry whomsoever 

 she would, whether her seducer, or 

 any other man. 



The reverend and learned prelate 

 was vigorously attacked, as it were, 

 in his own camp, by the duke of 

 Clarence and the earl of Mulgrave. 

 They reasoned from particular texts 

 of Scripture, from the tenour and 

 spirit of the Christian religion, and 

 the fathers and doctors of thechurch. 

 Had lord Mulgrave been bred to 

 the church, he would have been an 

 incomparable casuist. Both the 

 duke and the efirl considered the 

 bill as not only contrary to the law 

 of the Christian religion, but as ad- 

 verse to sound policy and the inter- 

 ests of morality. 



The duke of Clarence, with a de- 

 gree of waggishness, teased bishop 

 Horsley, with reading extracts from 

 a sermon of the late bishop of Ro- 

 chester's, which he preached at the 

 Magdalen about five years ago, and 

 which were in direct opposition to 

 the sentiments and doctrines of the 

 present bishop of Rochester's. One 

 of these extracts, which the duke 

 read with great feeling, was, as fol- 

 lows : " As imperfection attends on 



