law of the land, we know where to apply for its folution; but, as to the law of Parliament, the only law of will which this country acknowledges, we might poffibly trace its origin, and define its nature, but any attempt to afcertain the extent of its operation would be nearly as fruitless as the endeavour to account for it on those prin ciples which are generally denominated the fundamental principles of the British conftitution. It appears to us that the ftanding orders of the two Houfes ought to be rendered more public than they are, in order to diminish the risk of unintentional violation. That defcription of orders which relates to the internal economy of the Houses, fuch as the order for the exclufion of strangers, may certainly remain fubject to the discretion of the members, either to be enforced or not, according to circumftances, without danger or inconvenience; but as to thofe orders, the violation of which incurs the punishment of fine and imprisonment, the cafe feems to be different. If falutary and wife, they ought to be rigidly enforced, if otherwife, they should be repealed. But we are treading on delicate ground, and are moreover tranfgreffing our limits; fuffice it then to say, that in reviewing fuch pamphlets as thofe now before us (which we certainly fhall review with the fame freedom as other pamphlets fo long as they continue to be published) we, by no means, intend to afcribe the fentiments which our duty may compel us to cenfure, to the speakers themselves, but to the editors of the pamphlets, who must be alone responsible for all mifreprefentations. One of the chief reafons affigned by the prefent editor for publishing the fubftance of the Duke of Clarence's Speeches, is the zeal which his Royal Highness displayed "for the fair fex." Now as the Bill only applied to fuch of the fex as fhould violate their marriage vow, we cannot conceive that zeal for adultereffes constitutes any strong ground of recommendation to public favour or notice. It is impoffible for any man to exprefs more ftrongly than his Royal Highness is here made to exprefs, his deteftation of the crime of adultery, in the abfract, or to entertain more juft ideas than he is here made to entertain, of its most pernicious" effects on Society. He represents the adulterer as an infidious and defigning villain," as one who was and "ever would be held in difgrace and abhorrence by an enlightened and civilized fociety." (P. 32.) But we are wholly at a lofs to reconcile this correct defcription with the appellation beltowed on the fame offender in another place, where he is reprefented as a man of bonour" (P. 8.) The teft of his honour, however, it seems, is his fubfequent marriage with the adulterefs. A fingular mode truly of effacing a crime by a continued enjoyment of the fruits of it! It will not be denied, that the lofs of a mother to her family, of a wife to her hufband, is much more feverely felt than the lofs of property, Vet what would any man fay to a thief who, having robbed him of his property, repelled the imputation of difhonefty, by an allegation of the good ufe which he made of it? We here find another fpecies of honourable man of which we before had no idea. “The husband who, by fuing for pecuniary damages, P 4 obtained obtained a verdict, was confidered not as a very honourable man, if, when he received them, he put them in his own pocket, instead of returning them to the purfe of the defendant." So then, in the language of the world, thofe are called honourable men who confpire to render abortive the wisdom of the legislature by eluding the effect, and, confequently, defeating the purpose, of our penal ftatutes! Such men, in the language of common fenfe, are enemies to their country, fince their conduct has an immediate tendency to encourage thofe crimes which are admitted to be deftructive of all religious and moral principles. We trust this ftrange affertion is confined to the pamphlet; had it really found its way into either Houfe of Parliament, we fhould then begin to fear that our reprefentatives, hereditary and elective, were all degenerated into mere men of the world, and that the triumph of liberality was complete. The Duke, be it obferved, is made to fay, that it was not fufficient for him to confider the queftion only as a legiflator, a statesman, and a politician, a task we should have thought amply fufficient for any individual, but as a man of the world alfo. God forbid any queftion of morals fhould ever be decided by men of the world. We have heard of a man of the world who objects to marriage on principle. Now if he be true to his principles, and be a member of either Houfe, he ought to bring in a Bill for the abolition of marriage. We have heard of another man of the world who connives at the proftitution of his own wife. He, to be confiftent, should endeavour to have a law enacted for the removal of all reftraints upon the free intercourfe of the fexes. We have heard of another man of the world who, for years, has lived in the continual practice of double adultery. He, of course, should feek to procure, by legislative authority, the expulfion of the decalogue, from our Bible and CommonPrayer. But if men of the world were to be allowed to amuse themfelves with the art of legiflation, we fhould hope they would only legiflate for themselves, and live wholly apart from the reft of fo ciety. But the ftrangeft of all the ftrange things which the editor has not fcrupled to put into the mouth of this illuftrious speaker, is the affertion, that the royal family marriage act, was an act" in confequence of which he could not marry; it, indeed, placed him in the fame fituation the prefent Bill would generally place thofe who should unfortu nately fall under its provifions." Now the whole fcope of the arguments here detailed go to establish this point--that, if the Bill paffed into a law, its inevitable effect would be to reduce divorced adultereffes to the neceffity of leading a life of proftitution; nay, "perpetual proftitution" is exprefsly stated to be the confequence of the Bill. The analogy contended for, then, by the editor, is, that the act alJuded to abfolutely prevents the marriage of the male members of the royal family, and reduces them to the neceffity of living in perpetual fornication. If fuch were really the effect of the act, it must meet with the unqualified reprobation of every good Chriftian, and ought inftantly to be expunged from the ftatute-book. But the act (of the 12 Geo. III.) has no fuch fin to answer for. It only prohibits the marriage marriage of the royal family without the previous confent of the King; nor is even this prohibition abfolute, for where any one of the royal family, of the age of 25, has given twelve months notice to the Privy Council of his intention to marry, he is at liberty to marry, unless, in the interval, both Houfes of Parliament have exprefsly declared their disapprobation of his marriage. What could be the mo tive for this grofs mifreprefentation of the editor? We can perceive but one motive, that, of fupplying an excufe for any of those illustrious perfonages, if any fuch there fhould ever unfortunately be, who, forgetting what they owed to their God, their country, and themselves, Thould be induced to lead a profligate and immoral life. But no fuch excuse can be found. If perfonages fo circumftanced fhould ever feel the hardship of being unable to contract fuch marriages as their inclination might lead them to form; they fhould recollect, first, the principle of the prohibition, the facrifice of individual convenience to general good, deducing the wisdom and neceffity of it from those melancholy pages of our hiftory which exhibit the deftructive confequences of the civil contentions which divided the rival houfes of York and Lantafter, and deluged the kingdom with blood; and, secondly, that from the fituation which imposes such hardships adequate advantages arife the comforts of affluence without exertion of body or mind; rank, dignity, and confideration, without any previous effort to obtain them; and exclufive privileges without the neceffity of perfonal qualifications; and, thirdly, they should recollect, that no human law whatever can afford an excufe for the violation of a divine precept. Amidst the fcandalous profligacy of manners which prevails, in the present times, the writer who defcribes fornication as a fin is regarded as a Cynic, unworthy of attention. At the risk, however, of incurring a fimilar fate, we fhall venture to remind all those whom it may concern, that whoever attends the church service must describe fornication as " a deadly fin;" that fornication and adultery are confidered as fins of the firft magnitude by the infpired writers; and that we have the authority of an apostle for afferting, that "no whoremonger, nor unclean perfon, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Chrift and of God." It remains, therefore, to be confidered, whether it be the duty of a Chriftian to regulate his life, according to the fashionable morals of the age, or agreeably to the precepts of his God. When this once becomes a matter of doubt, deftruction is near at hand. We could point out many other reprehenfible paffages in this pam phlet befides those which we have noticed; but our limits forbid us. One, however, of this description must not escape without a comment. Many inftances are adduced from ancient history to fhew how adulterers were treated in former times; we could eafily out-quote the Speaker by a reference to our books, were it at all neceffary; but upon this, as, indeed, upon all topics connected with the religious and moral conduct of man, more inftruction can be reaped from a fingle page of the Scriptures than from all the volumes of ancient and modern times. The law of Romulus which gave, in certain cafes, the the power of life and death to a husband over his wife, is juftly re prefented as a moft infufferable and terrible tyranny; but we are told, forfooth, that fuch tyranny is not greater than the prohibition to an adulterefs to marry the adulterer! The reafon affigned for this inference is of a piece with the inference itself. "For what woman of fpirit would not fooner die, than live a long life of infamy and fcorn, for, perhaps, one guilty ftep?" This is another precept of the fashionable morality which our men of the world, it feems, wifh to inculcate,-If you cannot continue to poffefs the object of your adulterous paffion, commit fuicide to evince your Spirit. Reduced into plain language, the advice to the adulterefs here implied, is li terally this-You have rifked the lofs of your foul by the commif fion of one heinous fin, act, therefore, confiftently; and, instead of feeking to atone for your crime by a life of penitence and prayer, commit a ftill greater fin, and rush, unbidden, into the prefence of an offended God.-It is not poffible that any member of the House fhould have uttered a fentiment fo totally repugnant to every principle of religion. The paffage quoted from an admirable fermon, preached by the Bishop of Rochester (in April 1795) at that excellent charity, the Magdalen, can be deemed applicable only by thofe whose minds are fo perverted as to confider the ftate of a penitent proftitute who has forfaken her vicious habits, as the fame with that of an exulting adultrefs who feeks to reap the fruits of her crime, by fecuring for life thofe gratifications which led her to commit it. The motive affigned by the Duke of Clarence for his oppofition to the Bill in general is the best that could actuate his mind a convic tion that instead of diminishing, it would tend to increase, the fin of adultery. But not one argument have we found in the pamphlet that tends to establish this point. The motive for objecting to that part of the Bill which renders adultery a misdemeanour, is of a very different description. But we have not room to expose its folly and its fallacy. No methodical arrangement whatever has been adopted in this compilation, which seems to have been collected, at different times, from the Newspapers of the day. ART. XXIII. Subftances of the Speeches of Lord Auckland in the THOUGH the public are indebted to Lord Auckland for the recent introduction of this falutary bill, his Lordship modeftly dif claims the original merit of the measure. Thirty years before, he obferves, a fimilar bill was introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Athol, which paffed that House unanimoufly, but was negatived in the Commons; in 1779 it was again brought forward by the Bishop of Durham, and was again paffed unanimoufly in the Upper Upper and negatived in the Lower House. Lord Auckland, therefore, very naturally expreffes his furprise at the present display of "a great schism and diverfity of opinions refpecting a question dependant on the evident and immutable principles of juftice, morality, and religion." After fhewing that the proper object of divorce bills is to relieve the injured husband only; his Lordship, moft juftly, infers, that " it cannot be reconciled to the dictates of juftice, morality, or religion, that an adulterer and an adultress fhall be deemed entitled to a special interference of the legislature in their favour, and to a fufpenfion of the ordinary courfe of law, in order to enable them to complete a contract founded in turpitude: in other words, that a woman who has violated a folemn vow, made by a folemn appeal to her Creator, fhall be authorized by you to exhibit a mockery of Heaven, by a new profanation of the fame ceremony with the convicted partner of her crime." The noble Lord proceeds to examine the objections to the bill in a ftrain of nervous and animated eloquence, reprobating, with becoming feverity, the new morality of the times, and fhewing not only the extreme futility but the pernicious tendency of the arguments opposed to the measure. In answer to those who had contended that the prohibition to marry the adulterefs would encrease the criminal boldness of the adulterer, his Lordship makes fome very pertinent and judicious reflections on "that anomalous fort of honour which is here adduced, that non-descript plant in the pleafure-garden of modern morality." Heartily concurring, as we do, with the fentiments of the noble Lord, we fhall extract this paffage. "But I cannot comprehend the fort of honour which would be influenced by the obligation contended for, and yet would proceed coolly and deliberately to debauch a married woman; to entail a fenfe of thame on her innocent children; to deprive them of their natural protection; to give offence and difguft to fociety; to rob a friend of his happiness; and to destroy the fair pride and domestic peace of a whole family. "I cannot comprehend this strange cafuiftry, this fophiftry of fin, as applied either to the woman, to whom the noble Lords with to fecure the means of deriving benefit from her crime; or to her feducer, who is to be difcouraged by the implied obligation which I have thus analyzed. In favour of fuch doctrines I cannot, with my incompetent knowledge of the world, frame any argument which would not tend to bewilder my own understanding, and the understanding of others, in a vain endeavour to palliate vice and to countenance the vicious. It is a fort of threatening letter in behalf of crime, when we are informed, that, unless the feduced and feducer fhall be permitted to have their vices of the precife colour and tint which they prefer; we must expect them to commit vices of a deeper dye and enormity. We cannot compromife with wickedness; all morality would be thrown off is hinges, if fuch arguments could be used with effect; they are of a nature to undermine the whole fabric of juftice with respect to every crime that can be committed." ART. |