The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-19 00:00:00

I purpose. The 13th of Chailes the Second confirmed all the
r marriage[ contracted dilring the civil wars, without any excep.
tion whatsoever. 1n.1781 all,the previous marriages were cos.,
firmed, although Courts Of Law declared many of them to have
been null. Thep came the Act of 1816, . confirming all mar.,
• riages in India, when the proper consent had been previously
t given. In short, the whole tenor of our laws chewed the neces.
sity of revising thosemore especially which related to marriage.
• Parties contracting matrimony in
,Buie ecclesice should not be
L allowed divorce, nor parties instituting suits be allowed a plea
t of nullity, if not for crimes of the,worst species on the side of
the other party. lie hoped that no man who voted against the
L. proposed measure would ever find himself or any of his'family
reduced to beggary by such a vote:
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said, the question was not
I whether their Lordahips should pass the Bill or not, but whether
a proposed clans% should be agreed to, making all marriages
valid which were now null and void. The proposed Bill had
better be divided into two, to answer the purpose ofits framers
and serve the interests of the public. A Bill like . the present
could never pass in any house where a lawyer was to be found;
that it should still have passed was matter to him of the greatest
surprise. He considered it Would be more advantageous that
parties, when married, should know after the ceremony whether
they werehusband and wife or not, than be left in the situation
in which they would he placed by the clauses in this Bill. The
Noble and Learned Lord here adverted to the different clauses
of the proposed Bill, and remarked that many of them would
place parents and guardians, as well as the contracting parties
themselves, in a state ofthe greatest difficulty and embarrassment.
He particularly objected to those clauses regarding the con•
sent of parents, and contended that something certain and de-
fined should be substituted in their place. It was said that vested
interests would not be affected by the proposed Bill—but he
doubted that very muth. Perhaps, however, one of the greatest
evils would be, that no one could know if persons marrying
under 21 years of age, and the parent or guardian dyina•-be,
fore that period, no man mild know, in such a ease, whether
the marriage was valid or not? The clause respecting licences
was one which he could not endure, and the clause respecting
Banns was worse than-the clause in the former Act of Parlia-
ment, which did not visit with nullity of marriage any Omis-
sion of the clergyman. This Bill stated the duty of the clergy,
man to be, to publish the banns, names of the parties, places
of abode, &c. &c. but it made no excuse for any omission of
the clergyman, who was indictable for a mistake, however un.
intentional, in the publication of, the banns. According to the
best view which he could take of this subject, he thought it
Most important, and one which rendered it the sacred duty of
every Noble Lord in that House to take care not so to legis.
late, that no parties could know when they were man and wife.
He objected principally to the intricate machinery of the Bill,
and should therefore feel it his duty to oppose it.
Earl of LIVERPOOL—If this were the first time that this
Measure had been before their Lordships, he would not have
demurred to the proposal that the consideration of this Bill
should be postponed until the next session ; but when he cone
sidered how often this Bill had been under their Lordships'
Consideration, and how important it was to the general interests
of society, he could not help pressing upon their Lordships the
necessity of coming to some conclusiop before ,the end of the
session. He was convinced that there was not one among their
Lordships who did not feel the necessity of some material alte-
rations in the Marriage Act as it now stood, and he should
therefore propose that the clauses of the Bill should be taken
separately, and discussed upon principle, in order to ascertain
whether a new provision .better than any now in the Bill could
be introduced ; and their Lordships would, after such a discus-
sion, be enabled to judge whether or not the Bill were in such
a state as could be adopted this session. He agreed with his
Noble and Learned Friend that the prospective and retrospective
parts of this Bill should be kept distinct i and he would pro.
pose that their Lordships would, in the first instance, take into
consideration the prospective parts, of the Bill. With respect
to the retrospective part of the Bill, lie, for one, had no hesita-
tion in saying, that the voidability of marriages at present was
wrong, and ought to be repealed; but lie would not call upon
their Lordships' to dispose of that part of that Bill in such a
way as to preclude a second consideration. His principal doubt
was, whether marriages once solemnized ought to be voided--
He only gave this as a conditional opinion ; but he would w
out any reservation say, that nullity of marriage, as it existed at
present, could not be defended on any ground whatever.
Lord HOLLAND concurred with the Noble Earl in the
mode proposed by him for the consideration of, this subject.
Lord REDESDALE objected to the first clause, and su.
Bested the propriety of introducing into the Bill a clause, prog..
viding that all marriages should, in future be preceded by the
publication of banns.
Lord HAR ROWBY supported the clause, and suggested
that the sentence of the Court, declaring a marriage procured
by the fraud of the'party" void, should amount to a conviction
of perjury against the per. oh thus taking the benefit of his own
wrong.

The first clause was then read without a division.

On the question that the second be read being put,
Lord HOLLAND supported this clause, because it limited
the time within which marriages could be voided, whereas, ac-
cording to the former Act, marriages wore voidable at any
time during the lives of the parties, and in some cases long after
their deaths. He contended; that the clause was founded
upon the general analogieS of law. If it were necessary to enact
any thing, it should he done on the principle of this clause.—
There was nothing in the clause so mischievous as to induce
them to reject the Bill. Ile should have no objection, how-
ever, to any amendment, by -which it might be thought the
Bill would be improved:
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he should feel disposed to
propose, as an amendment, that suits should be instituted
within twelVe months after the solemnization of the mar-
riage. lie thought, however, it would be rather sparing time
to repott progress now, and consider the other clauses at some
future period. _ _ •

After a few-words from Lord Ellenborough, the Lord Chan•
cellor, Lord Carnarvon, Lord Redcsdale, and Lord Lauder-
dale,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, he had no objection that
the consideration of this clause should be postponed for the pre;
sent. He 'hoped, however, their Lordships would proceed to
the other clauses of the Bill that night.
After some further conversation on the subjectof postponing
the further consideration of the different clauses of the Bill, to
which Lord Ellenborough strongly objected,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit
again.—Adjourned at Ten o'Clock.