The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-06 00:00:00

Tuti: SUN, LONDoN, WRDNESDAY, VC!! ( 1839.

which were known to the Guardians before the marriage
took place. This could not have occurred under the
old law, at least without the Clergyman being subject to
Church censure as well as other punishment.
Lord LILFORD said that as ex-officio Chairman
of the Beard of Guardians of the Holborn Union, he
had received two letters, from which it appeared
that the petition which had been presented by
the Right Reverend Prelate as the petition
of that Board of Guardians was not the petition of
that Board, nor bad it ever been before the Board. It
MIS true that it was signed by some of the members
of the Board, but it could only be taken to be the pe-
tition of such persons as had signed it. He desired to
abstain from giving any opinion on the legality of the
marriage, and only wished to set the House right as to
the source from whence the petition came.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the objection of mar-
rying persons in a parish, without knowing that they
were resident in that parish, was an objection that ap-
plied to the old Act. In some instances, where par-
ties knew they were not entitled to be married
in certain parishes, they_ went to very largely populated
parishes, consisting perhaps of 8,000 or 10,000 inhabi-
tants, and then it was almost impossible to become ac-
quainted with all the circumstances of the parties who
contracted marriages. Some persons thought it was
the most easy thing in the world to make a new law,
and such a new law as would be calculated to meet
every event, but those who lived the longest in West-
minster Hall, and tried their hand the most at law
making, feund that it was the most difficult thing in
the world to make a general law calculated to effect
every object upon every subject. He would fain hope,
however, that the Right Rev. Prelate's observations,
which were most useful, would direct the attention of
those whose duty it was to attend to such affairs as
this, to the subject. Here were two mar-
riages which were, in point of fact, no
marriages at all—the issue of which were illegitimate,
and where nothing could be done to cure that law. He
did not know who the person was who hid been adverted
to, but he was certainly a very rash individual. His
Noble Friend who spoke last had declined to give an
opinion on the legality of the marriages, but he (Lord
B.) desired it to be distinctly understood that no doubt
whatever existed of the illegality of the marrilg-es. The
Judges had solemnly decided for a century past that
such marriages were illegal. A Bill had been brought
in by him (Lord B.), to which great attention had been
given by his Noble and Learned Friend oppo,,ite, with 1
a view to cure the conflicts that existed between the I
Scotch marriage law and the English marriage
law, which presented on the one hand the I
most painful uncertainty, and on the other the moat
absurb anomalies. The highest interests of society re-
quired that the law of marriage should be clear and easy
to be understood. As the laws existed at present, a

arriage might be lawful in Scotland and unlawful in

England. A man might contract a marriage which
would be perfectly lawful, but yet, if the same marriage
had been contracted 50 yards towards the south from
the place at which it was solemnized,-such marriage
would subject the man to transportation for bigamy.
Such a circumstance had actually occurred. A most
respectable man at Liverpool had mistaken the law.

Instead of being married in Scotland he was married in
England, and for that marriage he was sentenced to
transportation to Botany Bay. Subsequently his
sentence was commuted to two years on board the

hulks.—(Hear, hear.) If he had been married in
Scotland, the law of England could not have touched
him. The twelve Judges had to be assembled on
that occasion, and they decided that the marriage 'was

illegal.
Lord LYNDIIURST—He was afterwards par-
doned.

Lord BROUGHAM said he was pardoned, if that
was to be called a pardoning after he had been two or
three years on board the hulks. The man was thus
punished because it was said to be necessary in this way
to stamp the act to be as illegal. The still more absurd
anomaly followed that a man was actually a bastard in
England, while he was legitimate in Scotland, from
the ante-nuptial law being different in the two countries.
From that cause the same individual was legitimate in
one country, and would be seized of lands as well
as chattels there, while he w3s illegitimate in the other
and could be seized of neither. A further absurdity
was the fact,:that in Engl..nd a man might be a bastard
when he went into a court of law, and legitimate when
he went into a court of equity ; so that he might be a
bastard, and incapable of enjoying one estate, and le-
gitimate so as to be capable of enjoying another estate.
These were gross absurdities, and the sooner the atten-
tion of the Legislature was drawn to it so as to do away
with them the better. He (Lord B.) in 1835 had
brought in a Bill with a view to remedy the state of the
law, but he was about that time in very ill health, and
consequently ho had not been able to proceed with it.
His Noble and Learned Friend had given great atten-

mto it. He (Lord B.) was very anxious again to apply

himself to the' bringing forward of some such measure,
which should also be calculated to prevent another
mockery of the law, viz., the prevention of the mar-
riage of infants without proper consent. This part of
the law was oven to those who were not likely to be the
subjects or objects of it, hut the law had no operation as
regarded those who could pay for post-horses to carry
them to the Scotch borders. At the time that Norrie
was convicted—the person's case to which he had alluded
—he was counsel in that case, and he remembered stat-
ing that the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Primate, and
the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, all of that day, had
married their wives at Gretna Green.—(Hear, hear,
and great laughter.) Every one of those great officers
of State had themselves actually evaded the law of
marriage of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Was it not
absurd that such a state of things should exist ?
The Legislature ought to be able to prevent the great
mischiefs that might thus arise from marriages by those
who could in this manner evade the law by running
a race against it to Gretna Green. He should be most
unwilling to make any alteration affecting the law of
Scotland without the concurrence of persons there,
who everybody knew to be persons of great learning,
ability, and transcendent worth, but he had no doubt
that they would be very happy to have some of the
absurd anomaliek of the marriage law removed.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH made a few observa-
tions which were not heard in the gallery.
Lord MELBOURNE was exceedingly sorry to
hear the observations which had been made by the
Right Reverend Prelate. Unless there was accu-
racy in the registration of the births of chil-
dren, persons would be discouraged from bring-
ing their children to receive the rites of bap-
tism. If any Registrar had done anything to discou-
rage that, the Right Rev. Prelate must know that such
a person had acted contrary in that respect to the in-
structions of the Registrar-General. He (Lord M.)
had not brought down those instructions with him,
kit so far as he recollected them, they were in very
strong and very explicit language. He entirely. agreed
with the Right Rev. Prelate that it was incambent on

othiemL:rginisgleastuhreadtobeweantesluibt
jleiectwtoorkginrgeas
toafbtuhisse.Billl,f more
especially as their Lordships knew that the solemnization
took it from the dispensation of the Roman Catholics—
if they tookit from the period of the Reformation of this
country to the passing of the Marriage Act' they all knew
that what was called the Fleet marriages had taken
place in a manner which was neither conducive to the
interests of the State nor suited to the character and
profession of the Clergy. lf their Lordships considered
what had been the state of the Marriage Law when the
Act was passed, and which abuses it was intended to
prevent, they would remember that marriages had been
solemnized which ought never to have taken place ; and
when every one knew that those things did happen, when
the solemnization of the marriage rested entirely with the
Clergy, it was absolutely necessary, now that the so-
lemnization of marriages was confided to others than
the Clergy, to watch narrowly what was taking place.
The Bishop of LONDON certainly complained
that the Registrars had actually discouraged the
baptism of children. He intimated that it was
and in-
not necessary that registration should take place
immediately ; the consequence was that they were de-
layed from week to week, from month to mlnth, from
year to year, and so they. never got baptized at all. He
complained that the registration of the births of chil-
dren by the Church was not left alone.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know if this
in-
struct thuratutyc
ttwhisecln ell
eftirngtyowda h ni
what
o fin
was
oete r t
toei r
out
amongcoifu ttyh e? Crutch,then
people
The Bishop of LONDON thought that the Noble
' Lord might have spared that invidious reflection on the
Clergy. Did it follow that because an officer went
among the people to tell them that their children need
not be baptized, or that ceremony would do at any sub.
Clergy
Clergy
sequent time, that the Clergy did not do their duty ?
It was not unlikely that where a littlee expenditure was
might listen with eagerness to
rstatementequir required, the
h y peoplewhich any
they might be enabled to avoid
diffe-
course of
that expense. As one of the Clergy,. n.e must express
a hope that the Noble Lord 09 consideration would allow
ured to
war
st
ntohtewell reflectionfoundedh.e had just thrown on the
Lord ELLEN BOROUG H.—lf the
man
took much trouble to disabuse the minds of the
poor, he would easily counteract
.the poison of the
Registrar the Church would be believed..
The Bishop of LONDON—There. is this
dreer
what
ehaat lhoengreq
trier gn cuem. e n Thet
to proveC lClergyman
yt
all-Can iv
necessityoul
be done, whereas the other only used the argument
that a shilling would be saved—one which was easily
understood. -

intention to bring forward the motion upon the day for
which it stood in the book. He had not yet finally,
fixed, but his intention was to postpone it for one week,
He would however, on Thursday, be prepared to give
a precise answer. _ _ _

The Marquis of SALISBURY believed that that
would bring it into Passion Week—it would also be
important that the House should be put in possession of
the terms of the intended resolution.
Lord BROUGHAM—Under such circumstances
he was sure that his Noble Friend would not bring
forward the motion to the inconvenience of their Lord-
ships. His Noble Friend would of course see the pro-
priety of giving the House the earliest information as
to the exact terms of his resolution. No doubt the
House would be put in possession of it on Thursday
next; or at all events on Monday.
CASE OF MICHAEL BRYAN.

The Earl of CHARLEVILLE wished to know
whether the Governmmt would have any objection to
grant a return of the correspondence and communications
that had passed in the case of Michael Bryan ; he and
the Noble Marquis were at issue as to some of the facts,
and in consequence he (the Earl of Charleville) had
written to the surgeon of Tullamore gaol. The letter
was to the effect that the surgeon had never given it as
his opinion that Bryan was unfit for a sea voyage ; on
the contrary, that Bryan was in perfect health now, and
that all that previously had been the matter with him
was a sore leg, and no internal or serious disease.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said it was not
merely a surz. on's report which had induced the com-
mutation of Bryari's sentence of transportation. But
various reasors, among which one was, that Bryan (who
had been guilty of a most horrid outrage, that of
knocking out the eye of a one legged man) had been
recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, having given
101. to the party injured, as some compensation for the
outrage. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had not con-
sulted the surgeon of the Tull.more gaol ; but it was
the surgeon of the transport, who had stated that Bryan
was unfit for a long sea voyage. He could not consent
to the production of the recommendations and memo-
rials, which, unless in extraordinary cases, ware confi-
dential communications.

The Marquis of WESTME A.TH said he wished to
postpone his !notion rill Thursday.
The M:trquis of N ORMA NBY had no objection to

the postponement, but he would remind the Noble
Marquis oppo,ite that he had said that the abuses of
his (the Marquis of Normanby's) government in Ire-
land would occupy the entire of a week in detailing.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH—And that is my
honest opinion.—(A laugh.)
Their Lordships adjourned before Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. PIGOTT, the new Member for the borough
of Conine', tou k the oaths and his seat.

Mr. Crater, from the Treasury, appeared at the
bar with returns, which were laid on the table.

Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on petitions stating that the Standing Orders
had been complied with by the Birmingham and
Gloucester Railway Company, the Manchester Im-
provemeut Company, Preston and Wyre Railway and
Dock Company, and the Rochester Cemetery Com-
pany, and Bills were ordered to be brought in for them.