The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

NEW BILLS.

Mr. BROGDEN and others brought up from the Commons
the Navy and Army Pensions Bill, the Tonnage Duty Repeal
Bill, the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill., the Caledonian
Asylum_Bill, and several Private Bills.
The Earl of ROMNEY presented Petitions against the Ca-
tholic Peers 'Bill from Kingsdown and Woodhurst in the
County of Kent.—Laid on the table.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a Petition to the same
effect, from some Parish in Kent.—Laid on .the table.
The Bishop of ELY presented a similar Petition from the
Clergy of the Holy Trinity in his Diocese.—Laid on the table.
Lord COLCHESTER and the Bishop of CHESTER also
presented Petitions against the same Bill from the Town of
Colchester and the Archdeaconry of Bath and Wells.—Laid on
the table.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.

' The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the first reading of the
Army and Navy Pensions Bill, and gave notice that he should
move the second reading on Monday next.
Lord KING then expressed his intention to propose some
alteration in the preamble of the Bill, in order to make it do
what it professed to do.
The Bill was then read a first time, as well as the other Bills
received from the Commons.

The Bishop of LINCOLN presented a Petition from the
town and neighbourhood of 'Lewes, in the County of Sussex,
against the Catholic Peers Bill.—Laid on the table.
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

The Colonial Trade Bill, the West India, and American
Trade Bill, the Ancient. Commercial Statutes Repeal Bill, and
the Importation of Goods and the Navigation Laws Amend-
ment'Bills, were read a third time and passed.
MARRIAGE ACT.

On the motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, the Order of the
Day having been read, and the House having resolved itself
into a Committee,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose to state the objec-
tions which he had to the present Bill. He objected to it
because it was silent respecting the prevention of clandestine'
marriages. He conceived that every possible difficulty should
be thrown in the way of improper marriages, but that marriages
once made ought not to be dissolved.—(Hear, hear, hear ! from
all parts of the House.)—This ought to be the object of the Bill,
but it had no such object. He entertained a higher opinion of
the nature and sanctity of the marriage contract than perhaps
generally prevailed. He had heard it called in that House a
civil contract: so it was; but it was a civil-contract under the
sanction of a Religious Statute. The place, the mode, the
words in which it was solemnized, all necessary to the
completion of the marriage contract, made it a religious cere-
mony; for it was performed in the House of God, solemnized
by the Minister of that House, and sanctified by prayer and be-
nediction. The Bill should have contained a clause to prevent
improper, marriages. It had none such, and the clause now
under the consideration of the House, admitting as it did, that
marriages were voidable, would only leave the parties doubtful
whether they lived in a state of matrimony or in one of concu-
binage, and whether the children that played round a virtuous
mother were legitimate or bastards. Some modifications of
that clause were, he knew, to be proposed ; but as none could
induce him to admit the principle that marriages once solemn-
ized could be nullified, he should oppose both the clause and the
amendment.—(Hear • hear, hear I)
Lord ELLENBOROUGH agreed with every word which
had fallen from the Right Reverend Prelate. Understanding
his opinion, and that of the Reverend Prelates on the Bench

Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that as the clause had.
been prepared some years ago, and did not perfectly apply to
the present Bill, and as it was impossible to follow them through
all their details unless they were printed, he trusted the House
would allow the question to be put on the clause now before
their Lordships, and having done that, would proceed with the
retrospective, clause.
The LORD CHANCE LLOR. stated, that if the proposition
of proceeding with the retrospective clause were pressed, he
would divide the HOuse on the subject.
The Earl of HARROWDY objected to the measure, be-
cause by it all marriages in _ which the consent of parents or
guardians might be wanting, would in future be made by
banns, which would defeat the object of the Legislature, un-
less some alterations should be effected in the system of banns
.itself.

•
The question was then put on the second clause, which made
marriage voidable, and it was unanimously negatived.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was then understood to re-
new his objection to proceeding with the retrospective clause.
,Lord ELLENBORO UGH thought there could be no better
opportunity for going on with that clause than the present,
after the House had decided last night that mathava-without
consent should be no longer null, and had just declared that
they were no longer voidable.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the clause which
had just been negatived was the most absurd that had ever
been introduced into any, measure ; but contended that the
same absurdity attached to every proposal respecting banns in
every part of the measure. He would not agree to see the Bill
frittered down to what it was never meant to be, a mere Bill to
make existing marriages good, till he had been told what was
to be substituted to the provisions of the present law.
Lord HOLLAND conceived that the Noble and Learned
Lord did-not object to the retrospective clause, but to the or-
der in which it was to be taken into consideration. That
Noble and Learned Lord ought, however, to recollect that any
other clauses or provisos might be introduced after, as well as
before that clause.

Lord REDESDALE urged the necessity of approaching
such a clause with the greatest care and attention, and conceiv-
ed that it ought to be the last taken into consideration.
The Earl of-CAERNARVON did not see why the regular
order of the clauses should be disturbed. All those of the
Noble and. Learned Lord related to penalties for granting li-
cences improperly in future, and could not possibly apply to
the. manner of proceeding with respect to marriages which
were already contracted. He disapproved of the dispoSition
shown to postpone so important a question. Their.Lotdships
had been told last night to adjourn for no other reason than be-
cause it was ten o'clock ; had it been an Irish Constable Bill, or
any measure of his Majesty's Government, they should never
have heard of its being ten o'clock.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that for the last half how,
they had been discussing without any question before the
House. If the Noble and Learned Lord, who was so anxious
to save the time of the House, would propose something in the
shape of an amendment, that object would be more easily
attained.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—If the Noble Lord says that
I wish to save time, I shall tell hint in the most civil manner
that he is mistaken, and that I ran as little anxious to save time
as himself. If there is no question before the House, my ob-
servations have only cone before it. I maintain that the re-
trospective clause ought not to be discussed until all the other
clauses of the Bill should be gone through ; and in order to
place a question before the House, I move that the considera-
tion of that clause be postponed.
The question having been put,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, as Chairman of the Com-
mittee, declared that the " -Not contents" had it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR demanded a division, when
there appeared—
Contents . - - - 40
Not Content& - - - - 69
Maj9rity against the Amendment --29
On being re-admitted, we found .
Lord ELLENBOROUGH expressing his intention to
carry back the retrospective clause to the marriages which had
taken place since the passing of the Marriage Act in 1754.. It
would do no more than what was done by the clause in that
Act relative to Banns, which confirmed all clandestine mar-
riages in which Banns had been proclaimed. He allowed that
it might diminish the happiness of a few, but it would be that
of the libertine husband, who was desirous of getting rid of a
wife of whose person he was satiated, and of children whom
he no longer wished to support—it was that of the heir at law
who had enjoyed in anticipation that property to which justice
gave him no claim. But on the other hand it would increase
the.happiness of the good and the virtuous, and would make
those who married certain that their children would be legiti-
mate and would inherit their honours and their fortunes. He
then proposed, in order to preserve property in the hands into
which it had devolved, so that nothing should be affected by
the Bill save reversionary interests, that the following excep-
tionary provisos be added to the clause.:-
Ist. " Provided it be not construed to extend to marriages
declared invalid by judgments in the Ecclesiastical Court, or
to any marriages, when one of the parties during the life of the
other party has intermarried with other persons.
2dly. " Provided that if any property, real or personal, or
any title of honour be possessed or enjoyed before the passing
of this Act, on the ground, pretence, or colour of the invalidity
of any marriav,e by reason of such consent not being had before
its solemnization, although no judgment should have been pro-
nounced in any Court of law against the validity of such mar-
riage, such right and interest in such property or title shall in
no manner be affected by this Act, but shall remain as if this
Act had never passed."
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that after what had
passed, he should take no part on the Amendment proposed by
the Noble Lord, but should reserve to himself the privilege of