accompanied with a new bill, was thereupon presented, and ordered to be taken into consideration; for which purpose the Lords were summoned. On the 26th February, the petition was considered; and, after debate, was rejected.

MR. MOORE'S CASE.-SESSION 1805.

Husband called in to explain why he had not levied the full amount of damages. -Stated that he felt a moral scruple, which prevented him from taking more than would cover his expenditure in obtaining relief.-Bill passed.

In this case damages amounting to 10007., were awarded against the adulterer. The usual question being put, whether they had been duly levied, Mr. Adam, of counsel for the bill, stated, that Mr. Moore felt that he ought not, in conscience, to accept more of the damages than would indemnify him for the expense he had been put to, in obtaining the relief he sought for the injury he had sustained.

The petitioner was himself examined on this point, and stated that he had an objection to recover them further than to the extent of indemnifying him against the expense of the proceeding. This explanation appears to have satisfied the House; and the evidence being sufficient and satisfactory, the bill passed.

MRS. TEUSH'S CASE.-SESSION 1805.

Bill of Divorce by Wife on ground of Husband's adultery.-Debate.-Bill to be read second time that day three months.

THE parties intermarried in 1790, and had issue, two children, who died in early infancy. In March, 1796, Mr. Teush formed a connexion with a female named Sarah Evans, for whom he hired apartments in Chenies Street, Bedford Square, where she resided for upwards of a year; he visiting her there under the name of Thorley. They, subsequently, left these apartments; but returning again at the end of a week, they declared themselves married; and from thenceforth Sarah Evans was called Mrs. Thorley; he sleeping with her as her husband.

All this time Mr. Teush had a house in Fenchurch Street, in the City of London; and also a country place in Hertfordshire, where his real wife resided.

In process of time, Mr. Teush had several children by Sarah Evans; and the result was that he threw off all disguise, and permitted her to assume publicly the name of Mrs. Teush; passing her off as his wife in the city, where he carried on the business of a merchant.

Besides the shameful and open profligacy of his conduct with Sarah Evans, Mr. Teush's treatment of his wife was proved to have been harsh, insulting, and brutal; while the deportment of Mrs. Teush, on the other hand, was shown to have been throughout amiable, forbearing, exemplary, and, in all respects, irreproachable; it appearing, not only that she excited the respect and sympathy of all the considerable families in her neighbourhood, but that even her false husband himself freely acknowledged her merit and her injuries.

Mrs. Teush was at last driven to the extremity of a proceeding in Doctors' Commons; where she, in due time, obtained a sentence of divorce, and an award of alimony against her husband; who, however, uniformly, as it accrued, refused to pay it, until compelled by legal process.

~ of

These were the circumstances under which this bill was submitted to the consideration of the House of Lords.

On the order of the day (17th June), being read for the second reading,

The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley) observed, that the case was one of great and peculiar importance. He was of opinion, that however hard the rule might press upon a few individuals, it would, on the whole, be better if no bill of this kind were passed. With respect to the present case, he must say, it exhibited the grossest infidelity. It was not a single action upon sudden impulse of passion; but a deliberate abandonment of a well-deserving woman, and a taking up of a strumpet to his arms, in which he persevered for many years. The case of Mrs. Addison (") was very distinguishable from the present. There the wife would herself have been guilty of incest if she had returned to her husband. There was nothing of that kind in the case now before the House. He could not understand how the lady's circumstances would be improved by a dissolution of the marriage, which would involve the loss of the alimony, awarded to her by the Spiritual Court. The Right Reverend Prelate concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

(w) Supra, p. 594.

The Earl of Carnarvon dissented from the Right Reverend Prelate. He thought the circumstances of the case ought to induce the House to assent to the bill.

Lords Hawkesbury and Auckland supported the amendment.

The Lord Chancellor (Eldon) never recollected a more favourable representation given of any woman; but yet, on general grounds of public morality, he felt it his painful duty to give a negative to the original motion. The House then divided, when there appeared for the amendment 10; against it 7; majority 3.

The fate of this remarkable case, though special in its circumstances, strongly exemplifies the disinclination of the legislature to countenance or encourage bills for divorce at the suit of the wife. The merits of Mrs. Teush's claim, however, were, in some degree, weakened by the tardiness of her appeal to Parliament. The precise date of the decree of the Consistory Court, does not appear from the Journals; but it was probably in 1800, or 1801; as the first year's alimony was stated to have been applied for by Mrs. Teush, in December 1801. Whereas the petition to the House of Lords for leave to bring in the bill, was not presented till the 9th April, 1805; so that, in all probability, she did not originally contemplate the final step of a divorce a vinculo.

In a pecuniary point of view, moreover, the passing of the bill would not have benefited Mrs. Teush. By the marriage settlement she was secured to her separate use in 1007. per annum, which was regularly paid to her by the trustee of the settlement; and the alimony awarded by the Consistory Court must, of course, have had reference to the circumstances of her husband; who, although he continued to live in adultery with Sarah Evans, does not appear by any direct act, after the separation, to have molested or disturbed Mrs. Teush. How far such considerations ought to weigh in granting or withholding divorce for adultery, is a question with respect to which opinions may differ. It appears that the remedy refused to Mrs. Teush by the House of Lords, was afterwards granted to her by the Commissaries at Edinburgh. Her husband having proceeded to Scotland, where he lived in adultery, Mrs. Teush resorted to the Scottish jurisdiction, and obtained sentence of divorce a vinculo matrimonii (8).

(*) See Ferguson's Consistory Reports. As to the power of a Scotch Court to dissolve an English marriage, see the Speech of Lord Brougham, in the case of Warrender r. Warrender,

1 Sh. and McL., and the authorities therein commented upon; Munro Munro, 1 Rob. 611, and Doe Dem., Birtwhistle . Vardell, 1 Rob. 633.

MAJOR BLAND'S CASE.-SESSION 1808.

Recrimination. Where it appeared that the Petitioner had a Woman in keeping, whom he passed off as his Wife.-His Bill rejected.

THE petitioner had recovered a verdict against the paramour for 3001. But Mrs. Bland's counsel having been heard on her behalf, called witnesses who swore that Major Bland's conduct had been extremely culpable; it appearing, among other scandalous improprieties, that he had a woman in keeping, whom he passed off as Mrs. Bland. The bill was rejected.

COLONEL POWLETT'S CASE.-SESSION 1809.

Evidence which had satisfied Jury and Ecclesiastical Court,-not satisfactory to the House.-Bill rejected.

In this case the evidence of adultery, though not strong, had satisfied a Jury, who awarded 30007. damages against Lord Sackville. It had also satisfied the Ecclesiastical Court.

On the 10th June, 1808, the petitioner, who resided at Southampton, having gone on a boating excursion for the day, advantage was taken by Mrs. Powlett, of his absence, to repair to Winchester, where she drove to the White Hart Inn. In about twenty minutes after, and evidently by mutual concert, Lord Sackville made his appearance. It was proved that they passed about three quarters of an hour together, in one of the bedrooms, where they were found, under circumstances of great suspicion; but nothing approaching to direct or positive evidence of adultery was established. On the 1st June, 1809, the question being put whether the bill should be read a second time, it was resolved in the negative(").

() Let any one consider the state of matters produced by this decision of the House, and then say whether it would not have been better to pass the bill, than leave the parties condemned to a hateful union, after such an expiscation. But who is to decide that the evidence which convinced the jury

and the Ecclesiastical Court, but which did not convince the Lords, was in itself satisfactory? Here lies the difficulty; to which indeed all parties must continue to be exposed so long as an ordeal of three distinct tribunals is required to be gone through in order to obtain divorce a vinculo matrimonii.

MR. LOVEDEN'S CASE.-SESSION 1811.

Verdict at law against Petitioner.-Bill nevertheless passed both Houses,-but in consequence of clause introduced by Commons, Petitioner prayed the Lords that the Bill as amended might not pass.-Further consideration ordered that day six months.

THE Counsel for the bill admitted that an action had been brought against the adulterer, and that the verdict had been against the petitioner. The evidence, however, was gone into, and disclosed a strong case in favour of relief; and some circumstances appeared, which had not been proved before the Jury. The bill, accordingly, passed the House of Lords, and was sent to the Commons, who also passed it; but with an amendment which proved so distasteful to Mr. Loveden, that on the 26th June, 1811, he presented a petition to the House of Lords, setting forth that the bill had been returned to their Lordships, with a very material alteration made therein, by the introduction of two clauses; one for annulling the settlement made upon the marriage; and the other for compelling the petitioner to allow Mrs. Loveden 4007. a year for life; and further representing that she was then living in adultery with her paramour; and, consequently, submitting to the House, that the clause for making a permanent provision of 400l. a year for her, had a manifest tendency to loosen the bonds of conjugal fidelity; and the allowing it would be a premium to the wife for the commission of adultery; and, therefore, most humbly praying, that their Lordships would be pleased not to pass the bill with such a clause therein.

27th June. The amendments of the Commons were ordered to be taken into consideration on that day six months. The bill was thereupon abandoned (2).

LORD CLONCURRY'S CASE.-SESSION 1811.

Debate as to receiving in evidence a Letter by Wife to Husband confessing Adultery. Precedents cited.-Resolved in the negative.-Letter by Wife to Husband's Agent, on proof that it was not written in consequence of any threat or promise received, de bene esse.-Petitioner examined.-Stated his reasons for allowing Lady Cloncurry to remain in his house after discovery of her infidelity.-Bill passed.

THERE was put in the record of a judgment for 20,0001. damages, against the adulterer, Sir John Piers, Bart. The facts were shortly these:-

(2) See 2 Hag. Rep. 1.