find so great a person, as the gentleman who spoke last, had taken notice of a practice which carried a disgrace to the House, in the slight grounds of evidence that had usually been offered to that House to gain their consent to bills of divorce; that it was proper to put a stop to the hasty manner in which they precipitated bills of this sort at their bar; and that there required some attention to such proceedings, as the evil of divorces daily increased, he imagined, on that account.

out any papers being laid before the House. He was answered by lord North, who told the House he had not seen the Bill, but only a sketch of it. He was sure the noble lord (Clive) had given the House a very full and particular account of the affair, and he should certainly be for bringing in the Bill. Lord North was answered by colonel Barré, who in a very severe manner condemned the administration for supporting the Bill when brought in thus, but that he would always support them, and give his assistance to them, when they acted with honour. Major Van Neck spoke next, he said that there were men enough to govern Bengal, were they properly managed by the directors. Mr. Burke opposed the Bill being brought in without any papers being laid before the House, as by it we were to have a court of justice set up there without knowing who was to be judge. Sir W. Meredith spoke for the Bill, and the necessity of passing it, as there were fifteen millions of people in that country who were oppressed for want of some regulation there. Mr. Dempster shewed the state of the East India Company, and said, some regulations ought to be made for the inhabitants there. The question being called for, the motion was carried without a division.

Debate in the Commons on Lewis's Divorce Bill.] March 11. Counsel was heard at the bar in regard to the divorce of Mr. Lewis from his wife. This Bill had gone through the Lords, and came to receive the consent of the Commons. The House being in a Committee for that purpose, and the case being opened, it appeared that one Hog, a lad under age, was the person by whom the adultery was committed; but the counsel set forth no judgment of the divorce from the courts of common law.

Mr. Speaker said, he was no stranger to the Bill before the Committee; he therefore wished to apprize them of the necessity there was to draw down the attention of the House, and put a stop to the careless, inattentive manner of passing these bills of divorce; that judgments in the spiritual court were often obtained in the most collusive manner; and as there appeared, in this case, to be no proceedings at common law, he thought the mode of application here should at least have some ground-work to proceed upon from the courts below.

Mr. Mackworth said, he was glad to

Mr. Cornwall said, that the practice of obtaining divorces in this manner, hed long given him very great unasiness; that he was happy to find that the House did not so far deviate from their duty, as to throw off all attention to causes of this kind; that the easy mode of obtaining divorces at this House was loudly complained of without doors; and he hoped a day would be appointed to consider this matter fully, as the House was apprized of it.

Mr. Whitworth rose chiefly to return his thanks to the right hon. gentleman, for apprizing the House of the mode in which this Bill was brought; and as the objection to such proceeding came from so respectable a person, he made no doubt but that it would have great weight with the House, and that he ventured to say they would pay all the attention to it which it deserved; that he could not help calling to mind the many collusive proceedings, in the spiritual courts, with regard to divorces; that they were now become so frequent and numerous in their complaints to that court, that he imagined the judges of it could not find time even to pursue the common forms of evidence necessary upon such an occasion, or to record the sentence of divorce, which was the reason of the counsel, at the bar, being not prepared with such proper ground, or with any judgment at common law; that the practice of this House in consenting to bills of divorce, without such judgment or sentence, had been too well known, as it would appear that 13 out of 22 had passed the House, without a judgment from the courts below; and that there were 50 more divorces in agitation to come before them, each of which perhaps would come as unprepared; that men were in such a hurry to get rid of their wives, that they could not even stay for the necessary forms of evidence to go through with, in order to obtain a proper divorce by lawful process: but are told they may have it done at once by the House

of Lords and Commons; that the easy process of getting rid of their wives, had certainly given a spur to adultery; had it not been so, many occasions for such divorce would have been prevented; that now-a-days a man's wife, in this trading nation, was esteemed no more than a mercantile commodity, bartered for and transferable at your bar for a certain sum of money; but to their shame be it spoken, who set no greater value on the most inestimable blessing this world can bestow; they are monsters, not men. He said, that the practice of getting rid of divorce bills had hitherto been a disgrace to the House, and a direct encouragement to adultery, and that he hoped a stop being put to such easy process for divorces would be a stimulating means to make men, whose fault it generally was, to behave better to their wives, when they saw it was not so easy a matter to get rid of them, and prevent the women from seeking occasion for such divorce, perhaps without any vitiated intention of their own; that he would not pay so ill a compliment to the House of Lords, as to fancy that no other evidence had appeared before them, to found their assent upon, than what had come to the knowledge of this House; and must suppose that they would also be glad of a revisal of this Bill; he hoped, therefore, the House would give them that opportunity.

The Committee then put off the consideration of the Bill to the 19th.

" His Majesty being desirous, from paternal affection to his own family, and

anxious concern for the future welfare of his people, and the honour and dignity of his crown, that the right of approving all marriages in the royal

In the summer of the year 1771, the duke of Cumberland, one of the King's brothers, privately married Mrs. Horton, widow of Christopher Horton, esq. of Catton Hall, in the county of Derby, and daughter of lord Irnham: when the match was publicly announced his Majesty forbad them the court. The displeasure shown by the King on this occasion did not deter the duke of Gloucester, in the ensuing spring, from avowing as his consort the countess dowager of Waldegrave, whom he had espoused in 1766.

family (which ever has belonged to the kings of this realm as a matter of public concern) may be made effectual, recommends to both Houses of Parliament to take into their serious consideration, whether it may not be wise and expedient to supply the defect of the laws now in being; and, by some new provision, more effectually to guard the descendants of his late majesty king George the second (other than the issue of princesses who have married or may hereafter marry into foreign families) from marrying without the approbation of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, first had and obtained."

Ordered, That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, "to return his Majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message; to express our sense of his Majesty's paternal affection to his family, his anxious concern for the fu ture welfare of his people, and the honour and dignity of his crown, which must ever be inseparably connected; and to assure his Majesty, that we will immediately take the same into our most serious consideration."

Copy of the Royal Marriage Bill.] Feb. 21. The Earl of Rochford presented to the House of Lords the Royal Mar riage Bill, of which the following is a copy:

"An Act for the better regulating the future Marriages of the Royal Fa mily.

"Most Gracious Sovereign, "Whereas your Majesty, from your pa ternal affection to your own family, and from your royal concern for the future welfare of your people, and the honour and dignity of your crown, was graciously pleased to recommend to your parliament

to take into their serious consideration, whether it might not be wise and expedient to supply the defect of the laws now in being, and by some new provisions, more effectually to guard the descendants of his late majesty king George the second (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) from marrying with out the approbation of your Majesty, your heirs or successors, first had and obtained:

"We have taken this weighty matter into our serious consideration, and being sensible that marriages in the royal family are of the highest importance to the state, and that therefore the kings of this realm

the issue of princesses, who may hereafter marry into foreign families;" which being objected to, after debate the question was put, whether the words in the said clause shall stand part thereof?

The Lord Chancellor said, that he confessed he had had a share in drawing this Bill, and should be unworthy of the situation he was in if he could not defend every clause, every sentence, every syllable, every word, and every letter in it; that he would defend every part of it, and was free to confess that he would not consent to any amendment whatsoever; that if the Bill was to be altered, it was better to throw it out; that it could not be mended; that the foundation of the King's right to the care and approbation of marriages in the royal family, was their importance to the state. As to who are the royal family, all the descendants of George the second are so, and so was the princess of Wales, for the Civil List Act is made for the support of the dignity of the royal faemily. The princess and princes are paid the civil list, and therefore they are of the royal family. That this right is in the King, he proved by the marriage articles of the princess of Brunswick, in which the King says, he gives his sister in marriage,' &c. If any inconveniencies arise, parliament will take care to remedy it an hundred years hence; that all power may be abused; but it is better to risk that than not to give this power: that it is not against religion to annul marriages, for you have done so in the Marriage Act, and in the Act to prevent lunatics from marrying; that the royal family are not in the Marriage Bill, and therefore this Bill, or some Bill, ought to pass. The King cannot make a bad use of this power, because parliament would punish the minister who advised the King ill. It is impossible to draw any line; the line must go as far as the necessities of the state require it.

The Marquis of Rockingham answered shortly the exceptionable parts in the Lord Chancellor's speech.

Lord Camden answered them more at length; said he was ill of the gout, could not stay long in the House, would not fight the Bill inch by inch, but would beg leave now to state the whole of his objections to the various parts of it. He admitted the necessity of a Bill; that misalliances reflect dishonour on the King when within certain degrees; that all things are essential to kings; their very

robes and ornaments are not ceremonies; that the line the descendants of George the second' is too extensive; he compared it to the inverse of a great river, which received from every brook and stream something, and became at last one great river; so the royal blood is just the reverse; it is one great source at first, which the farther it goes spreads itself the more, and divides at last into an infinity of parts; that it would be dreadful if the powers of wardship should extend so far; that he knew a man that had the blood royal of England in his veins who was an alehouse keeper; that if it was right to give the King this power over the descendants of George the second, that is, to futurity, it is as reasonable to give it to the issue of former kings, and bring it to them who have the blood royal in their veins; that this is the fairest way of trying whether you do right by futurity; put yourselves in their case, and see how you like it; subject yourselves and your families in your marriages, and the education of your children, to the wardship of the crown; for surely you would not do by others differently than you would do to yourselves. If, therefore, the principle is right, you should extend it to the descendants of any king. But it is better to restrain it, not within such narrow bounds as prescribed by the noble marquis, but to the limits of the Act of Precedency, Henry 8; that no inconvenience could arise from the present King (with many compliments to him); that if the Bill was restrained to his Majesty's life, he would have consented to ten times as much as is now required, but other kings may be bad rhen; that the parliament can never do otherwise than agree with the King on such an occasion. To differ with him would be such an affront to a king, that if he was in parlia ment at such a time, he would rather agree to what he did not like than put such an affront upon a king; that it would be better not to annul the marriage when made by persons of years of discretion, but lay all other restraints and terrors make it necessary to have the bannsublished in St. James's chapel; lay heavy penalties on the offending party; barish him for ever from court; incapacitate him if you will from ever sitting in parliament, but do not annul a marriage between persons of age.

The amendment was then rejected, on a division, by 88 to 34.