The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-09 00:00:00

Vtitrb Vlttton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PA RLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the third reading of the
Sheriffs of Westmoreland Bill.
The Bill was real a third time and passed.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
This Bill, on the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE,
passed through Committee.
PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented by. various parties,
praying to be heard by counsel against the Port of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from the
minister and wardens of a Roman Catholic Chapel,
complaining of the too near approach of a railway to
the west window of their chapel.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the in-
ventors of a smoke consuming apparatus, praying for its
adoption by the Government.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions against
the granting of licences to beer-houses; also from certain
miners in the county of Northumberland, praying that
some of their members might be examined before the
Committee on the Ventilation of Mines.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Lord BROUGHAM, in explanation of what he had
urged the other night on the subject of the classification
of prisoners, impressed upon their Lordships the ne-
cessity of shortening the period of confinement which
took place of prisoners before trial, and suggested the
propriety of enlarging the jurisdiction of the County
Courts for the purpose.i
ASSAULTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
MUTINY AND DESERTION (INDIA) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
RETURNS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented the re-
turns of the Loan Commissioners of Ireland, and several
other returns, by command of her Majesty.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from several
shareholders in the Eastern Counties Railway, com-
plaining of having been led astray by certain misrepre-
sentations to consent to an amalgamation with another
company, and praying that the Bill for that amalgama-
tion might not pass until the Bill authorising a Govern-
ment audit of railway accounts should have become law.
The Bi:ls on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE (in continuation from our
Afternoon Edition) said—He had now to beseech the
atten'ion of Hon. Members, and particularly Scotch
Members, while he stated the objects of the Marriage
Bill. In the first place, one of its objects was to introduce
certainty, and remove great sources of uncertainty, with
respect to the contraction of marriages—to leave it no
longer a muter of doubt and difficulty to be ascertained
by a sitting investigation, and a long and most
unsatisfactory inquiry whether parties have or have not
contracted the state of marriage. Ile first object then,
was to remove uncertainty with respect to the institution
ormarriage, and to introduce regulations to secure a
better performance of the ceremony. The second object
was to insure, as far as possible, publicity to the contract
of marriage, and to put an end to a state of law which
he could not help thinking was a disgrace to a eivilizsd
country, as it not only admitted but encouraged the con-
traction of clandestine and concealed inarrieges.—(llear,
hear.) The third object ot the Bill was to secure a
reasonable intimation of the intention of p trues to
marry, se as to prevent hasty and ill. assorted unions, by
giving the friends of the parties some notice of the in-
tention, and thus making them interfere to pre-
vent or sanction the marriage. time being al-
lowed to them for the purpose.— (Cries of " Hear.")
There was also another point to which he wished to ad-
vert, viz., that a person belonging to any ot the dissent-
ing bodies in Scotland could not be married by a dissent-
ing clergyman without a proclamation ot the hallos
being first made in the Established Church. This, he
considered, was a very great grievance to all the
parties concerned. The present law of Scotland made
marriage a matter of civil contract; it was constituted
simply by consent, and it was not even required that
intercourse should follow the consent of the parties. To
ascertain, therefore, the validity of marriage, it was
necessary in many cases to spell it out by inference and
conjecture, which, of course, gave rise to much
difficulty, and frequently to litigation. Was that a state
of law which ought to be allowed to exist? It was said
that the presnt law was for the protection of females,
but in how many cases had it happened that a written
promise of marriage had been given to the woman, and had
afterwards been destroyed by her seducer? In how many
other cases had it happened that the womanhad received
themost direct promise of marriage, had then surrendered
her person, and on being deserted had no other evidence
to appeal to than the oath of her seducer? He had no
hesitation in saying, as the result of long professional expe-
rience that the present law, instead of being a protection
to females, was a snare for entrapping them.—(Hear,
hear.) He would now state how he wished the Bill,
which he had introduced, to operate. In the first place,
he intended to make all marriages good which were
celebrated by a clergyman ; he would leave the
law as regarded such marriages where he found it, with
this exception, that where there was no proclamation of
the banns, the parties should fill up a certificate giving
notice to the registrar of their intention to marry. With
respect to other marriages—marriages of an irregular na-
ture which were constituted by former subsequent inter-
course oricohabitation, reputation, or private writings—he
proposed, in order to ensure publicity, that no marriage
should be valid unless the consent was given before the
registrar, and was duly registered by him. This
would prevent all dispute as to the validity
of the marriage, and would also prevent all
clandestine proceedings. He also proposed that
where the parties refused to have their banns
proclaimed, that they should intimate their intention to
marry to the registrar, who was bound to
publish it in the most effectual manner. The Hon.
Gentleman opposite maintained that he had done
nothing. because he had only fixed a penalty of 2001.
He wished to remind the Honourable Gentleman,
that in dealing with a clergyman he was dealing with
a public officer, and he could not deal with
him in any other manner. In such a case, too, the
penalty e ould be followed probably by deprivation
of office. He could not carry the punishment fur-
ther, r xcepc by melting the marriages void, and
that would lead to worse cense queuces, and would
punish the wrong parties. The uncertainty of the
law in Scotland wi'h respect to marriage was the great
evil which called for this redress. With respect to con-
sequences, he referred the House to the case of a gen-
tleman in Scotland possessed of extensive landed pro-
perty there, who had married a lady from England, and
alter the union bad subsisted a year or two a claim was
brought against him by a woman in Scotland of a pre-
vious marriage, which claim depended upon writing,, in
hich she affirmed a promise of marriage way given. 'liege
were held to be proved, and the English marriage was
declared void, and the lady obliged to return In,me in
the character of an unmarried woman after she had for
some time sustained the character and borne the honours
of a married woman. Was such a state of things to
be permitted any longer? Was such a state of law
to be approved which allows such abuses to prevail?
This case of itself alone was sufficient to ask that House
to interfere and put (loin such a state of law. He wished
to make a few observations with respect to the opposition
made to this Bill. Members of the Church of Scotland
had sometimes said to him "you are making marriage
too easy by allowing marriage by registration." Why
what better way was there than thus to insure publicity?
Others, almost in the same breath, charged him with
making marriage too difficult, by preventing marriage
by writings and subsequent intercourse, or by promise,
Again, he was charged with giving legal countenance
for the first time to irregular marriages. With regard
to the objections made by the Church of Scotland, it was
only necessary to look at the state of things in Scotland
now; the only penalty now was for a clergyman marrying ,
a couple without obtaining evidence of a proper pro-
clamation but have nothing to do with the Church;
marry by writing, however dubious and enigmatical—
marry by promise, however slight, and you were
perfectly safe. If a clergyman were intro-
duced into the affair, and if he did not obtain
evidence of a proclamation, which he had already shown
to be a perfect farce, that instant the law interposed and
the parties were subject to a penalty. What an ab•
surdity was this. Could there be conceived any more
preposterous state of the law than this? lie could find
no force in the objection of the Church of Scotland
to any law which proposed such a state of things.
It the Church of Scotland did say that they had a right
to interfere in this matter, they were making greater
claims than the Church of Rome had done at the
Council of Trent. With respect to the petitions which
had been brought against these Bills, they numbered 337;
and 225 were presented from the Church ; and these
were got up in an extraordinary manner. There was a
petition from the General Assembly, and a petition
froth the Communion of the General Assembly, which
was about the same thing. In the same manner there
wart petitions from the synod, presbytery and particu-
lar individuals in Aberdeen, and this was the way all
throuebout. Out of 1,000 parishes in Scotland, not above
130 bad petitioned ; and all the petitions presented
were not signed by more than 7,000 personas. He
could not consider that these petitions were
ex-
position of the opinion of Scotland. He asked fornthcseßills, first, on the ground of certainty to the
contracting of marriages in Scotland, which they
had not at present, and, secondly, to gtidveetshireitp(i)iiptc..H
hefty to marriage, which was highly
The Committee d:d not object to listening ,
nions of lawyers given before the Committee; bet they
oeiccted to some half-dozen clergymen: of the Estate.
lished Church, and a provost ffotn each city in Sti,t-
bed, being in the first place examined before the Com-
mittee. The Hon. and Learned Member concluded by
saying he would oppose the amendment.
Mr. WNEILL supported,the:amendment. Before he
could consent to any alteration in the law, he deniabded
some exposition of the gr at injury that had resulted
from: its past t pera time He htvi ee objection to gem,
into a Committee of inquiry on the disgraceful mode
which obtained en the burgers of Sete laid ot solemnising
marriages. On the borders of Scotland that practice was
a great grievance to the lower orders ot the people of
Scotland, and he would rejoice to see a measure brought
in to remedy and remove that abuse; ruck) a measure
would not only cure a great evil to which the lower
(jaws were Low subject, without abridging their ou.l()Y.

merits, but would effect that object without working
any evil to the higher and middle classes. He
held that a marriage solemnly entered into by
the principals in the presence of the members
of their families, which was the present mode
of celebrating marriage in Scotland, and where the par-
ties afterwards for a long series of years lived in the
open relationship of man and wife, was a much more
impressive proof of the relationship of marriage than
any mere regisiratien the fact, which was one of the
objects proposed by the present Bill. The ancient
practice of solemnizing marriages in Scotland
was one which had a counterpart in every
nation in the world, and its propriety and legality had
been recognised by the ecclesiastical courts in England
in the person of a man so learned and of so high a re-
putation as Dr. Lushingion. It had been given in evi-
dence before the Committee over and over again that the
people of Scotland were a virtuous people. Why, then,
was the House to be told by the advocates of the pre-
sent Bill that the present system of marriage led to vice
and immorality ? He hoped the people of Scotland were
to be considered a civilized people. He knew they
were a virtuous people, and one who respected the laws.
In the name of justice and the people of Scotland, he
protested against this Bill, since they had given them no
opportunity of stating their objections to it. The author
of the Bill admitted that the people of Scotland were
most virtuous, yet the Bill was introduced on the ground
that it was intended to put a stop to im-
morality. The laws of England with respect
to marriage did not prevent that in England
which it was stated it was the object of the Bill to ob-
viate in Scotland. In the first place, nearly all the
counties of Scotland bad petitioned against this Bill.
Mr. F. MAULE—The petitions also were against the
Registration Bill.—(Opposition cheers.)
Mr. M'NEILL said if the Marriage Bill passed, the
Registration Bill would be rendered necessary.
This showed how much both of these Bills were dis-
liked. An immense number of the town-councils had
voted against it, as also a vast number of parochial
boards, who might be said to represent the poor; also of
the General Assembly, and of the borough representa-
tives. Surely these persons and the others who had pe-
titioned against the measure could not be looked upon as
not expressing the interesls of the people of Scotland. It
was said that the number of petitioners was small. Why
it must be borne in mind that many of them were signed
by the:chairmen of the meetings from which they bad ema-
nated. This Bill had been before the House three years,
but each year it had been rejected ; and the patient
having refused for three years to take the medicine pro-
pounded to him, the Noble Lord was about to thrust
it down his throat. (Loud laughter.) The people
of Scotland were a loyal, a peaceable, and a
constitutional people. This was conceded on all hands.
Therefore
hnl s tmh
oe ys t sohhoj ue lodt
onnoath pe ret
os s
tah
emwe ahsoulree
mu a
sp osnotfh et
hme
wpeople. If they were about to start a new colony, he
did not say that the law of Scotland with respect to
marriage was one that he should feel disposed to apply
to it; but, having stood so long, and worked so well, he
saw HO reason why it should be altered against the wish
of the entire people.—(Cheers.)
Mr. F. MAULE referred to the proceedings in the
Committee on the Bill, and drew attention to the fact
that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just re-
sumed his seat declined to give evi lence on the subject
before them. It was the more to be regretted that he
had not placed his opinions on record, since
he had now expressed them so strongly. lie
would ask whether a great improvement would
not be made in the condition of the people
by marriages being made public instead of being
carried on clandestinely. The amendment moved
by his Right Honourable Friend the Lord Ad-
vocate if carried, would make the law clear on
the subject of marriage in Ireland. He believed that
the voice of the people of Scotland was nut represented
by the petit ,ns that had been presented against
this Bill. The petitions had emanated from nu
public body, but from the Commissioners of
supply for C. inn ti, s. He believed it was
not the Marriage Bill, but the It ,gistration B:II, with
which the Marriage Bill was connected, that had caused
the opposition of the Commissioners of Supply to the
measure.—(Near.) The city of Glasgow had approved
of the all, and also the Registration Bill and so
bad many of the principal cities) and towns of Scotland.
The grounds on which he gave his support to the mea-
sure were not because he wished to force upon the
people of Scotland a measure to which they were
opposed. lie did not wish to cram down the
throats of the people of Scotland a me isure antagonistic
to their peace, but the grounds on which he supported
the measure were that it would place the marriage law
of Scotland on a more sound basis, and would promote
the morality and happiness of the people of Scotland.
Mr. HUME thought all the witnesses, and the state-
ments of the Noble and Learned Lord, the late Lord
Advocate of Scotland, had demonstrated every fact
in support of the present measure. They might
well talk of the manner in which Scotland was used
in that House. Why, this was the only four hours
during the present session that had been devoted to the
affairs of Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) It his Right
Honourable Friend the Lord Advocate introduced
a measure to abolish Gretna•green marriages in
Scotland he would support him.—(Hear, hear.)
But when he brought forward a measure
that was to put an end to a great prin-
ciple in Scotland, and when he found that the
Government were persevering against the wishes of a
majority of the people of Scotland, he could not but la-
ment the course that had been pursued. He
thought it a perfect mockery, in every
point of view, to see the way in which the
people of Scotland had been treated in that House.—
(Hear, hear.) He denied that the institution of marriage
in Scotland was one worthy only of a semi-barbarous
nature. He thought the time was coming when they
should pass a resolution, and be hoped Scotch Members
would be the first to do so, that when it was proposed
to proceed with Scotch affairs after midnight,
that a motion should be made to adjourn the
House—(Hear)—and that such motion should be
persevered in till the affairs of Scotland were properly
considered. The Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord I
Advocate) had said that this Bill had come down to the
House for three years. He trusted it would come down
for thirty before the House would tolerate such a
measure.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") On
these grounds he hoped the Bill would be rejected, and
that in future Government would see the necessity of
not taking up the time of the House with such measures
as these.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... ... 68
Against it ... ... ... ... 73
Majority against it ... ... —5

Oa our return to the gallery we found
Mr. GLASTONE, observing that, although he was
not a Scotch Memb,r he was so far connected with Scot.
land as to have the means of judging the state of pubic
feeling there on this Bill, and he trusted it would not be
persevered in this session.—(Hear, hear.) The Parlia-
mentary case of the Learned Lord—he did not mean the
merits of the case—was againit him, and as he
and the Committee over which he had presided had ad-
ulated that further evidence ought to be taken on the
subject, h,, hoped the time of the House would not be
wasted any longer, hut that the Bill would be postponed
till next session.—(Hear.)

Lord J. RU3SELL dtd not think the time of the
House had been wu.ted, as this debate had afforded the
Right Hon. and Learned Member opposite, the late
Lord Advocate, an opportunity of statin.: his views upon
the Bill, which he certaml) had done with great ability.
—(Eierv.) All, therefore, that he could now do, after
heariuK this debate, was to ask the House to name
a day or fix a eert.in period when they would read the
Bill a third titne.—(H,,ar, hear.) If the House had no
objection he would fix it for Thursday, when he would
be prepared to state distinctly what course Government
intended to pursue with regard to the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. LOCKHART apprehended that that question
was still before the House.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE said the motion before the
House was the main question as to whether the third
reading should be taken on Monday or not.
Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that they had better,
under those circumstances, adjourn the debate till
Thursday.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no objection to that
course, and moved it accordingly.
Mr. HUNIE hoped the Registration Bill would be con-
sidered at the same time.
Mr. BOUVERIE, on the other hand, trusted it would
not, fur while he and others were opposed to the Mar-
riage, they had no objection to the Registration Bill, but,
on the contrary, considered it an excellent measure, not-
withstanding what had been said by an Honourable
Baronet opposite, that without the Marriage Bill the
Registration Bill would be a dead letter.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then adjourned till six o'clock.

The House resumed at Six o'clock.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Mr. FAGAN presented a petition from York praying
for an extension of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
Mr. HURE gave notice that he should tomorrow
move for returns of the expenses of the harbours of
refuge, including those which had already been paid and
those which had been incurred.
Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice that at the
morning sitting on Thursday, he should move
for leave to bring in two Bills for the
beneficial regulation of the mercantile marine.
One was intended toregulate the present custom of pilot-
age, to which he expected there would be no opposition.
and the other, which had regard more to the positions of
the seamen, if there should be any opposition to it, he did
not intend to proceed daring the present session.
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask the Noble Lord
the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), as a member of the
Health of Towns Commission, whether the report is
correct, that, in the metropolis and other large towns.
the cholera, in poor districts, has generally attacked
those persons whose habitations were in the vicinity of
grave-yards?
Lori ASHLEY said the communications which had
been receird from the different parts of the country did
not state whether or not the deaths from cholera
had taken place in the vicinity of grave-yards.
There could be no doubt, however, that interments
in towns did exercise a very dangerous; iufluenee upon
the health of the inhabitants.—(Hear, hear.) Dr.
S. Smith, in a letter to the Board of Health, with refer-
ence to the c'ises of cholera which had occurred ac Bris-
titl, stated that the disease had broken out in a low,
damp and overcrowded neighbourhood, in which
here were burial ground+ where the most
violent outrages were committed.
SUPPLY.

In reply to Mr. IIENLEY,
Lord J. RUoSELL stated that he intended to take
the Cc/matinee of Supply on Thursday next.

RAIL WAYS-DISTBESSED UNIONS (IRE.
LAND) BILL.

The House then resolved itself into Committee upon
this Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
move a vote as an fidvance for the completion of the
railnay between Dublin and Galvenv.
(LEFT SPFA KING.)

TATTERS A LL'S—T HIS EVENING.
Six o'CLocx..

LIVERPOOL CUP
5 to 2 agst E,se..arius
7 to 4 agst Thringaro
9 to 2 agst KPleshea

GOODWOOD CUI
4 to 1 agst 'lle Hero
9 to 1 agst S

000DWOOD STAKES.
10 to 1 agst Maid of Masham
12 to 1 agst Tophana
16 to 1 agst Remembrance
17 to 1 agAt Syrup
18 to 1 agst Bacehanslian—taken
20 to 1 agst Collingwood
20 to 1 agst Van Dieman

DERBY.
20 to 1 agst The Italian—taken
50 to 1 agst Witchcraft

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEBA'S BENCH. July 7.
(Sittings in London, before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and
a Special Jury.)

BAMFORD V. THE LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL FIRE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
_ _

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.
The defendants' evidence called this morning was
directed to show that there were strong reasons for sus-
pecting that the fire had been occasioned by the procure-
ment of the plaintiff. The point of this evidence was,
that a man was seen coming out of the house at the time
of the fire, that the house was, nevertheless, locked up,
that the lock was a Chubb lock, and, therefore, not
easily opened, and that the key was in the possession of
the plaintiff's servant. With respect to the property in
the house, a great many witnesses deposed that, from
what remained after the fire, it was not of the best sort
of trade materials, and that it did not exist in such quan-
tities as to justify the amount claimed for the loss. The
witnesses generally stated the amount at about 4001. It
was farther proved that, a little time before the fire, the
plaintiff was pressed for money, and had been sued for
I very small hums.

eilr. Sergeant SHEE replied.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN told the jury that the ques-
tions to be considered were—first, whether there was
evidence to support the plea that the fire had occurred
by the procurement of the plaintiff ; and, secondly,
whether the claim sent in so greatly exceeded the real
value of the goods on the premises at the time of the
fire as to amount to a fraudulent claim. If the first
question was answered in the affirmative, there was an
end of the case; if in the negative, then the second
question would come to be considered. If the claim was
fraudulent, then, according to the terms of the policy,
the plaintiff could not recover. If it was not fraudulent,
the verdict must be in his favour.

Th. jury retired for some time, and then brought in a
finding that the plaintiff did not procure the house to he
set on fire, and on that issue found a verdict for the
plaintiff. As to the other issue, the jury found that the
claim was a fraudulent claim, and on that issue the ver-
dict was for the insurar.ce company.