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

•
THP, NUNrt LONDONI WEDNESDAY EVONING, JUNE 20 1655,
T./ lit7r,r; F.4.1.n) •1' ;4'l xtt t•; n`.NT

-.'_•
4 ...I,,,,i'xilfttt4-14
• nf , .

poesibi; l:•ut did working, ohnntmity Wnrio,
(2,LucEO, In oonsequemo3 of it 4 prov;;;ion, thy ooninnttd
the grossest immorality in order to escape iron the
provisioss of the act. He was firmly of opinion that the
tide had set in in favour of legislation on the subject,
especially for the benefit of the lower cla.!.ses, whom they
were more hound to respect than the higher. Tile act
of 1835, in his opinion, was nothing but a snare, and the
sooner it was pot an end to the bt:l.ttr.
Mr. COLLIER sail tins wag n,-,t n, que4ion of pre-
cedent, but one of principle. if the house should be of
opinion, putting other considerations on one side, that we
were wrong in passing the act of 1835, let them aunal
it at once, and no longer permit the immoral effects it
was calculated to produce, and was producing, t 3 re-
main in operation. (hear.)
Mr. NAPIER agreed that the question was one of
principle, and viewing it in that light proceeded to con-
sider the improper effect of sanctioning an illegal act.
In support of his arguments he referred to some obser-
vations on this point which had been made by the
Bishop of St. David's, Lord Brougham, and other au-
thorities.

f.~,s :.ta

this day.

°•ess
this day.

I.4ondot,
N. kv,t
E. Un.
E. C
GL.Nrcto :.
Calcionian,

98 --
100 --- 102

IJ4 -- lati

Do
Gt. Weszi
Vit. New.
Berw.
Y. N
Do
Do

27 - 29

1.15

S. Easton
Do

- 13
23 - 24
114 - 121

Peto & Co.

Norfolk
Do
L.& N. W
& Mit-110.
Stektou Et

Mr. B. DENISON, in replying to a remark which
bad fallen from the hon. member for Dublin (Mx.
Napier), said it was not upon the religious view of the
question that he had referred to the opinion of the
Bishop of St. David's, but simply upon the immoral
tendency of the bill in its effect upon society in general.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. NAPIER,
Lord EBRINGTON had very frequently voted with
the bill, thinking its operation would be vcry consider-
ab:y to promote the cause of religion and morality. He
could see no ground fer supporting' the bill so unjustifi-
able as that of merelycausing disco natort to and interference
with the feelings of some sentimental people, which had
been put forward as an argument for " placing a stumb-
ling block in our brother's way." (Hear.) He could
conceive those who believed these marriages were prohi-
bited by Scripture offering every impediment to their
legalisation, but he could not conceive how those who
had at heal t the welfare of their fell iv-subjects endea-
vouring to legislate in such a manee: as would have the
effect of encouraging, or, in fact, compelling, the com-
mission of immorality to a very great extent. With re-
gard to the retrospective question which was now
before the house he could not agree with it, and
although the authorities quoted in its favour were un-
questionably high, he never heard arguments which had
been advanced upon them more uns,tisia.7tory.
Mr. FRESIIF,ELD, after denying that the act of
1835 was a retrospective enaetmcnt, went ou to contend
that to legalise the retrospective operation of the pro-
posed act would be contrary to all precedent, He,
therefore, protested against the principle of introducing
retrospective legislation in a case where there was no
call whatever for it ; and at the same time asserted that
the general fewling of society was in no way favourable
to the change.

2i - 21

95 -

En. Coun.
F.. Co au
Do
Do

- TIP
58 CO

L.&N.W.
&Ln&Yk
.....

,i• ••

Gt Nora
Lame :still
Yorker
T. Brassey
M. If Cloa
Stock t.
Darlingt
Do

133 - 135

8 - 9
2i --• 2}'

- 33
92 --- 94

I OtWestn

Lord SEirMOUR would vote against the amendment,
because if the bill were carried the operation of such a
provision as a retrospective ehactineut wculd produce
not only confusion, but be unjust towards those who had
delayed contracting marriage with the sisters of their
dece.l.Fel wives until the act wal passed.

Sir F. THESIGER said the remarks which had fallen
from the noble lo=el (Lord Seymour) had impressed upon
him snore than ever the necessity of abstaining
from legislation altogether on this question. (Hear.)
The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill had cited
a case as applicable to the retrospective operation of
this act, the legalising the marriages of priests. These
marriages, he (Slr F. Thesiger) contended, were never
contrary to the law. They were valid according to the
common law of the land, but not so with regard to the
ecclesiastical law. The lion. member for Plymouth
denied his assertion that the act of 1835 was nut retro-
spective, but contended it was applicable to the present
bill. He (Sir F. Thesiger) repeated the act of 1805 bad
no retrospective operation, its object being to declare
those marriages fur the future null and void, and to pro-
tect the children cf such marriages. The supporters
of this bill had not ventured to deny these marriages
bad been consummated in direct- violation of the
law, and he hoped the committee would not
set such a mischievous example, as the passing of this
act would he to encourage the people to violate the law.
He asked the learned Attorney-General supposing a man
married his deceased wife's sister, and after that his de-
ceased wife's niece, which would be the valid marriage ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERA L con trovertcd the state-
ment of Sir F. Thesiger that the act of 1835 was not a
retrospective measure. He proceeded to show from
" Hansard" that such was its intention, and that the bill
now before the house was rendered necessary in conse-
quence of the cx post: facto legislation of 1835.

Mr. WALPOLE said that with reference to the act
of 1835, in one sense it might be considered a retroTec-
tive one, though in reality it was not so. The object of
that act was not to allow persons to remain in that un-
certain state as before with regard to their legitimacy,
and for the future to remove that uncertainty as to what
was the law of the land, and prevent these marriages
from taking place.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the case he had mentioned of
the priests being allowed to marry was one strictly ap-
plicable as a precedent for retrospective legislation, and
proceeded to read the prEambi• of the acts of Parliament
proved with reference t) it.

Mr. HENLEY, who rose to address the house amidst
cries of "divide,' said the women themselves were the best
judges of the social part of this question, and were this
bill left to them for their decision they would negative
it. If it were proposed to introduce a clause in the bill
that one woman might marry two brothers he thought
it would not receive the appribation of the house, and
he could see no difference between the feelings of the
different sexes on this question. He proceeded to argue
that the precedent cited for retrospective legislation in
the ease of the priests was not applicable to this bill.
He believed that the clause, if adopted as it at present
stood. would be productive of the worst results.

Alcer some furTher discussion the coremittee divided
on the amendment, when there appeared—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment --47
The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause
as originally proposed was allowed to stand part of the
bill.

83
. 130

On cruse 2 being put,
Sir F. THESIGER wished the question to be put
upon a footing that could be understood by the public.
He was desirous of knowing- whether under the provi-
sions of the bill children of the first or second marriage
were to be considered legitimate, or both ?
Mr. HEYWOOD considered that by the provisions of
the bill the children of the first marriage would be legi-
timate.

➢Zr. WALPOLE wished to know what was to be-
come of the children of the second marriage, because,
according to the statement of the hon. gentleman, those
children would be bastards ?

Mr. HENLEY was desirous of knowing the Attor-
ney• General's opinion upon the subject.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, in the event of
a man contracting a marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, and afterwards with a deceased wife's niece, the
first marriage would be the lawful one under the provi-
sions of the proposed act, but in the event of a man
contracting first a marriage with a deceased wife's sis-
ter, and then contracting• a marriage lawful according
to the existing law, the present act would legalise that
marriage.

Sir P. THESIGER objected to the retrospective
clauses of the bill.

After A. short discussion upon the question as to which
of the children of two illegal marriages were entitled to
legitimacy under the new act, and in which Mr. Keat-
ing, Mr. Napier, Mr. Heywood, Sir F. Thesiger, and
Mr. Walpole took part,
Mr. COLLIER said all those objections which bad
been raised to his mind rather pointed to the incon-
venience of the act of 1835, and the desirability of get-
ting rid of it as soon as possible. He did not think the
cases of marriage which bad been referred to as being
likely to arise were within the bounds of probability.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE objected to the proposition
of the hon. member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), that the
objections which had been urged against this
measure only pointed to the desirability of doing
away with the act of 1835. To his (Mr. Phillimore's)
mind they lather pointed to the necessity of not pro-
ceeding further with such a measure as that without bet•
ter considering its clauses, and better understanding
them. With the strong feeling on his mind that the act
was not properly understood even by its mover, and none
of them could place a proper construction on one of its
most important clauses, with the strong impression on
his mind that the whole subject ought to be well di-
gested and re-considered before any further proceedings
were taken with regard to it, he should move that the
chairman now report progress.

The motion liavinz been put accordingly,
Sir F. THESIGER pointed out that the cases which
the hon. member for Plymouth had characterised as not
being probable had actually occurred, and could be re-
ferred to ; and then proceeded to reiterate his objections
to the anomalous phraseology of three of the most im-
portant clauses of the bill, the words of one of which di-
rectly negatived the other.

LOWE said, it appeared to him that the princi-
ple on which the majority of the committee seemed de-
sirous of legislating was perfectly plait, and the only
difficulty they encountered was one of the clauses of the
bill, which was inoperative in carrying out the object
they had in view. The act was one of indulgence,
and was intended to place those who had
violated the law in the 'ame position as if
the act of 1835 had not been passed, without, how-
ever, taking away any of the legal rights already ob-
tained under the law. That principle was clearly esta-
blished by the 31 clause. Then again, the question bad
been raised as to priority of legitimacy in certain cases.
Now, these cases might very easily be provided for,
without retarding the further progress of the bill, if the
house were really in earnest in a desire to legislate in
the matter, by the insertion of a clause fixing the priority
when the report was brought up. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the house had been treated with
various opinions from' legal gentlemen respecting the
validity of the two marriages named by Mr. Walpole.
They were told that the bill would more immediately
affect the humbler classes of society, but he was inclined
to believe such was not the case, for if so they
would never have beard of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
He was of opinion that the house was entitled to
have placed before it clear and positive clauses to show
them how the difficulties mentioned by hon. members
could be effectually and satisfactorily got rid of.
Mr. L. HEY WORTH supported the bill, considering
the act of 1835 an ieiquitous one.
Mr. HEA.DLAU who supported the bill, observed
nothing was easier than to insert words in the clauses
of the bill that would get rid of the difficulties com-
plained of.
Mr. HEYVVOOD said he bad no objection to that

course
The .
CIIAIMAN then put the question, that the chair-