The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

MARRIAGES BILL.

On the order ofthe dey for going into oramittee on
this bill,

Mr. EDI:VERDI presented a petition from Dunfermline,
and two from Kuniarneek, in keno of the bill.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY presented petitions from Stamford,
Connotes, and several other places in England; also from
the leading mereltants and other inhabitants of the county
and county town of Ayr, and from the city of Glasgow,
Seised by between 5,000 and 6,000 persons, all in favour of
the bill.

Mr. HOPE presented a petition against the bill (plats not
beard).
sir lt. INOLIS presented a petition from t►e rural deanery
of Dunstan, and from Chesterfield, against the bill.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented petitions against the bill
from 152 electors of t►e county of Bute, from the magis-
trates and town email of Oben, and from 6,893 females of
Edinburgh.
Mr. DIVETT said he thought this • seandalou and
immoral bill. If anything is his parliamentary experience
had astonished him more than another, it was that •
gentleman of the high character. learning, and ability of the
boa. and learned member for Bata should ►ace conducted
this bill. He would more " that this ►ouse do resolve
holt into committee on this bill this day els months."
The house then divided—

Fee the amendment
Against it
The house then *at into committees, and dense 1 was
agreed to without discussion.
On clause 2,
Sir F. THESIOER said they had now arrived at that
Mugs of the bill at which all discumion with regard to
de principles should he suspended, and they should confine
themselves entirely to • consideration of its details. H.
mentioned this is order that his pain* might not be
mignodentood, and that when he saw objection to certain
ratio* of the bill it Eakin not be supposed that he was in
any degree waiving the Tight which he had to object to its
pnaciph at some future stage', which he should mat
unquestiesably do if an opportunity should be afforded.
What he proposed te submit to the gennaittee
was, the amen meat of which he had given nodes
that wianiagge with a deceased wife's sister, whisk
had ben contracted since tho year 1836, in direct
violation of a known law, should rot by this bell
b. rendered valid. It would easily be observed by hon.
maembers who were of opinion that the law with respect to
these marriages ought to be changed, that they might quite
consistently vote for his amendment, because they might be
of *Woo with him, that the act should hen the operation
whisk the clause, as it et present Med, would give it. He
thought it would be admitted that aU retroactive laws were,
is general, a nolaie• of the prineiplee of legislation.
Taking the principle that the legislature would only inter-
fere is cues of ignorance or inadvertence, or when some
thing like amoral necessity existed, let the committee look
at the position of those parties who, since 1835, bad coo-
t/acted marriages with • deceased wife's *tn. and inquire
whether the y tied erred through ignorance et iaadvettence,
or whether they had sot wilfully and deliberately violated
• kaown law. Referring to • letter at page 143, of appen-
dix No. 18, he forted the writer stating—" I knew, of
mares, that I was running counter to the act ofperliament."
(Hear, hear.) I. No. 19, a party said—" I did not Oughts
that sets of parliament could either neat* or annul moral
obligations." (Hear, hear.)
lir. WORTLEY—Finish the sentence.
Sir F. THESIOER said the writer added—" Though I
so far respected them as to have the marriage eolerunised in
• country when the union was legal." But that was not
the object for which he had cited the posse. (Hear, hear.)
Though it might be doubted whether an net of parliament
could annul a moral obligati*, there was no doubt what-
ever that It could create one : fur la the am of any law that
wad Pewled, not is opposition to the Divine law, there was
• 1.11111.1 *ligation to *bey it. (lieu, hear.) They wen
new dealing with wilful trasegrem .ra of the law, who knew
perfectly weU Vat theme had rendered them ward** null
and void; sad them was no 'retinue of the legislature
ieta-
peeing for the peeisetion of such parties. (Hear, hear.) He
might be referred to this act of 1835, as as instance I. which
pros* who violated the law, and knew they were violating
it, had been protected by the legislature, and their act ren-
dered valid. It was, tthers'orc, important to explain the
circumstances under which that law impaired ; and it weal
be found not to have the bearing contended fur on the other
•idr. Up to 1835, the law as to m 'triages within the pro-
hibited degrees was this:—Although these marriages, which
he held to be sostrary to the divine law, might be
annulled by • mit is the"ecclemiesthel soar: during the lives
of the parties, yet, on the death of either, the ecclesiastical
courts mild sot interfere to invalidate the marriav, and
render the issue illegitimate ; or, if the ecclesiastic.' court
was put in sooios. the common law would inter** by
prolalbition. It had been erneueously seems* that tne
ma .e a differs** between marriages within the prohibited
degrees of sifts*/ sad those of emisanguitely —flat the
latter were void, but that the former were void able oily.
That was nn wain mistake. Both were oar Fcsei..ly the