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

STOCKBRIDGE RACES.

(TIIIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)

Rodo-INTeli
Ethelwolf •
William Rufus

BIBURY STAKES.

Three ran.
CHAMPAGNE STAKES.

Brother to Orinoco
Cerra

Five ran.

BEVERLEY RACES.

(THIS DAY.)

(17Y ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
BISHOP BARTON STAKES.

Manganese
Alfred

Eleven ran.
BEVERLEY CIIP.

Draxey
Little Brownie
Gamelad a

Six ran.
E INGSTON-ON-HULL STAKES.

Tom Perkins
Notredatue

Six ran.

DIPER lAL PARLIAMENT.

110 USE OF COMMONS-(THIS DAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.

The Dearr•ess Valley Railway Bill, and the Torquay
District Churches Bill were read a third time and passed.
The Gateshead and Hexham Roads Bill, and the Dun-
dalk Harbour and Port Bill were considered and ordered
to be read a third time.

Petitions were presented from various places in Kent
aqfrinst the exceptional clauses in the Sunday Trading
Bill ; from places in favour and against the Marriage
Bill ; arid in favour of Mr. N. Gibson's Education Bill,
from South Wales.
MARRIAGE LA'W AMENDMENT' BILL.

The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into committee on this hill.

On clause 1 being put to the house,
Sir F. TRESIGER said that any discussion on the
principle of this bill would. now be out of place. They
were called on to cons',der this question ; and in
proposing his amendments to this bill he trusted
it would not be at all considered that he bad waived
any objections he had originally entertained to the bill,
hut, on the contrary, he be eged to inform the house that
those objections had been considerably strengthened by
the arguments he listened tie 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. Tbc committee would no doubt remember that from
1835 marriages of the description it was now sought to
legalise were positively pro:nbited by law, and in express
terms were declared 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 to him that any more dan-
gerous and mischievous principle than that attempted
to be established by this bill could hardly be imagined.
(Hear.) He considered it would be conceded on all
hands, that laws having a rat rcrspective operation ought to
be cautiously passed and applied almost to extreme
cases, and that the conditioia of the persons who, bavirg
violated that law under pvirticular circumstances. im-
posed on Parliament the alma ist moral necessity to inter-
pose on their behalf. Front time to time, but very
sparingly indeed, where parties bad violated 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 le eon 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 strovisions 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 atleet
the consideration of the propriety of their passiug such
a bill as this. Many hon. we sabers, entertaining the
opinion that the marriage 'with a deceased wife's
sister was neither prohibited by divine law nor that
there was any moral or social objection to it, voted for the
second reading of the bill, but those hon. members must
concede to bins 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—(hear, hear)—and they would no doubt agree
with him, that the wilful transgressors of the law of the
land were such as were not entitled to the protection of
Parliament—(hear) —and the persons who would be bene-
fitted by the retrospective operation.' of the bill were
the persons who were precisely iu th,e 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 was 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 these, 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; bat it being a matter which a human Legislature bad
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, coming 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 hon. member for North Warwickshire
supposed it to be. Previous to that time marriages within
the prohibited degrees were absolutely void, but could
only be declared so by a sentence of the Ecclesi-
a-tical 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. These persons were, however, and
toe children especially, in a very precarious predicament,
because during any time of the lives of their parents fhe
marriages might have been declared void, and in
order to prevent that recourse used to be had to what
was termed friendly suits, which were kept iu existence
during the joint lives of the parents. When that device
was not resorted to it might have happened that at a
late period of their lives some person entitled to the
succession by a suit invalidated the marriage, as the
parties themselves from some caprice might do the same,
which was a state of things that ought not to have been
permitted. If in such a case the Legislature bad inter-
fered it might have declared the marriage void or valid.
Parliament, however, adopted a medium course, and
provided that any marriage that had taken place prior
to the passing of the act should be considered legitimate,
and that the legitimmy of the children of that marriage
should not be questioned. (Rear, hear.) He thought
that parties who had since the passing of the act con-
tracted marriage within the prohibited degree knowing, as
they were bound to do, its provisions were entitled to no
consideration from the house. He firmly believed that
if the bill in its present state was passed, the children
of the poor would derive no advantage, arid as far as
those of the wealthy were concerned no good could be
obtained by the present measure, because he defied any
one to say that their moral or social condition would be
unproved by it ; but it could not be said that according
to the retrospective Clauses of the bill the rights of
parties would not be materially interfered with.
(Rear, hear.) He warned the house against passing
a law, the effect of which would be to give offenders a
reward for their offence. (Hear.) He trusted, there-
fore, that the house would at once adopt the amendment.
Mr. HEYWOOD opposed the amendment, thinking
it impossible for Parliament to create by any enactment
a moral obligation that should be binding upon all.
(Hear, hear.) Moral obligation as it at present stood
sanctioned these marriages, and he did not think it was
the duty of Parliament t, attempt to alter it. He
thought the present bill ought to have the chance of
pane tlasiugh both houses of Parliement. (Hear.)
Lord It. CECIL' supported the amendineet.
Mr. B. DENISON considered the act of 1835 a com-
plete failure, and he would, therefore, vote for the
amendment. The wealthy classes of society set the bill
of 1836 at defiance because they had money in thei