The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-20 00:00:00

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

—---
The SPEAKER then left the— chair, and the house went
into committee on this bill.
On clause 1 being put to the house,
Sir F. THESIUER said that any discussion on the
principle of this bill would now be out of place. They
were called on to consider this question ; and in
proposing his amendments to this bill he trusted
it would not be at all considered that he had waived
any objections he had originally entertained to the bill,
but, on the contrary, he begged to inform the house that
those objections had been considerably strengthened by
the arguments he listened to that were used by the sup-
porters of this bill on its second reading. (Hear, hear.)
He might have left the details of the measure to
those interested in it, if it were not that he
found on reference to its provisions that there was an
attempt to violate one of the most important principles
of legislation by giving to the bill a retrospective opera-
tion. The committee would no doubt remember that from
1835 marriages of the description it was now sought to
legalise were positively prohibited by law, and in express
terms were de&.ared null and void to all intents and
purposes, and the object of this bill was to legalise such
marriages as had taken place between parties who have
deliberately and knowingly violated that law. (Hear.)
He confessed it appeared ,`o him that any more dan-
gerous and mischievous prinejole than that attempted
to be established by this bill ceen'd hardly be imagined.
(Hear.) He considered it woult: be conceded on all
hands,that laws having a retrospective cepera.tion ought to
be cautiously passed and applied almost to extreme
cases, and that the condition of the person s who, havirg
violated that law under particular circum stances,
im-
posed on Parliament the almost moral necessi.tY
to inter-
pose on their behalf. From time to time, L'eut very
sparingly indeed, where parties had violatk'd the
law through ignorance or inadvertence, the -.Legis-
lature had interposed for their relief ; but on
no occasion had the Legislature sanctioned or
legalised the act. They had shown their opposition to`
passing retrospective laws, by making exceptions in
cases where penalties had been incurred, as to suits
which had been instituted even by common informers.
Having said there was no one instance in which the
Legislature had interposed to legalise an act that had
been committed against the provisions of an act of Par-
liament, he did not suppose an act that had recently
passed that house to protect two of its members would
be cited as a precedent applicable to the present bill,
that being one which could not in the least degree affect
the consideration of the propriety of their passing such
a bill as this. Many hon. members, entertaining the
opinion that the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister was neither prohibited by divine law nor that
here was any moral or social objection to it, voted for the
second reading of the bill, but those hou. members must
concede to loin that supposing such to be the case,
Parliament was entitled to pass a law prohibiting such
marriages, and that such having been done it was
the duty of every good citizen and subject to obey
that law—(bear, hear)—and they would no doubt agree
with him, that the wilful transgressors of the la .v of the
land were such as were not entitled to the protection of
Parliament—(hear) —and the persons who would be bane-
fitted by the retrospective operations of the bill were
the persons who wore precisely iu the predicament he
had just described. It was unnecessary for him to
advert to the association formed many years since by
persons of wealth, station, and influence for the purpose
of procuring the repeal of the law prohibiting these
marriages, and which they were entitled to do, pro-
vided they did it in a legitimate and proper manner ;
but whether the means they resorted to were proper
or not he would not stop to inquire. Whilst, however,
it *as perfectly legitimate for those persons to inter-
fere to procure a repeal of the law to which they
objected, so long as that law remained in operation it
was their bounden duty to obey it. It was clear many
of those persons—he might say the whole of them, in
fact—had contracted their marriages, knowing the pre-
cise state of the law with regard to them. (Hear.)
The marriage with a deceased's wife sister was
always one of doubtful propriety, and no prudent
man would have contracted such a marriage without first
ascertaining the law on the subject, and knowing
what it was. He (Sir F. Thesiger) should venture
to think no moral man would have ventured to
violate it, but have submitted to its provisions until that
law was repealed. With regard to these marriages not
being contrary to divine law, nor direct by moral or social
obligation, no one ever ventured to say that they
were ordered by the divine law, or directed by moral
law ; but it being a matter which a human Legislature had
a right to control or direct, the passing an act of the above
description, prohibiting these marriages, clearly created
and imposed a moral obligation. (Hear, hear )
That being so, here were some persons who, by
their own confession, have contracted these mar-
riages, knowing they were prohibited by law, coining to
Parliament and saying that although they have know-
ingly and deliberately violated the law, we ask
you to interpose for our protection, and to
make that legal which at the time we contracted
these marriages was illegal, and continued to be so
down to this time. It might be said that the legisla-
ture, in fact, on the former occasion passed a law
respecting these marriages, having a retrospective
operation, and he would endeavour to explain the real
provisions of the act of 1835, which was not of that cha-
racter which the bon. member for North Warwickshire
supposed it to be. Previous to that timemarriages within
the prohibited degrees were absolutely void, but could
only be declared so by a sentence of the Ecclesi-
astical Court, and that during the life of the
parties, and therefore the children of such persons whose
marriages had not been declared void were legitimate,
and entitled to all the rights of children born under ordi-
nary circumstances.
(LEFT SPEAKING.]

LA W INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HILTON V. ECKLESTON-JUDGMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
of the defendant the sum of 5001. The defendant, with
seventeen others, milkwners of Wigan, bound themselves
by a bond in the penalty of 500/. each to close their mills
for 12 months, in order to resist an illegal combination
of the workmen to raise the price of wages. The ques-
tion for the consideration of the Court was whether a
bond of that nature could be enforced at law.

Mr. Justice Crompton considered the bond void as
against public policy, and was an offence indictable at
common law. Agreements of that kind tended rather
to prolong than shorten the mischief it sought to cure,
and was mischievous in the extreme. It was not to be
endured that masters or men should legislate in a man-
ner to interfere with the happiness and comfort of the
people, and the trade and commerce of the nation.
Judgment must be for the defendant.

Mr. Justice Erie said that this case was one in which
the masters had contracted and combined for the protee-
tection of their interests against the injurious results of a
combination of their workmen to raise the price of wages,
and which it had been contended was an illegal act.
The 6th Geo. IV., sec. 2, repealed all former acts re•
lating to this subject; sec. 3, enumerating certain pro-
hibitions which were declared illegal and punishable, and
unless tree act in question could be brought within that
section the bond must be considered a valid one and re-
coverable at common law. His judgment was in favour
of the plaintiff.

Lord Campbell (whose judgrnent in consequence of his
lordship being engaged at Nisi Prins was read by Mr.
Justice Crompton). His lordship concurred with Mr.
Justice Crompton in considering the judgment should be
for the defendant, but at the same time he was not pre•
pared to say this combination was such an illegal act as
would render the parties liable for a conspiracy. This
bond could not be enforced by action and WM void on
principles of public polity. He was at the sarne time bound
to say that the object of the masters to put down an
illegal assodatiou of the workrnt n, and to protect their
just rights and privileges, and prevent their being in-
fringed was a laudable one, but the means sought to be
employed to effect it were such as the law could not
sanction. The fanciful notion of a labour parliament to
regulate wages was a thing that could not be tolerated.