The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-03 00:00:00

it (i-t/i

application in favour of a person who must have committed
perjury was not a very reasonable one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that these Peti-
tions showed in what situation persons supposed themselves to
be placed by the retrospective clause in the Bill. He admitted,
however, that this case would not be affected by it, nothwith-
standing that, from what the Noble Earl had stated, the Lady
was likely to be soon in the straw. The Petitions, he however
thought, could not be regularly received, as they were not
from the parties who complained, but from their Proctors.—
The Petitions were withdrawn.

Lord ELLENBOROUGLI moved the Order of the Day for
the third reading of the Marriage Act Amendthent Bill.
Lord STOWELL rose and opposed the Bill in a very long
speech, of which, from the low tone of his Lordship's voice,
very little was distinctly heard below the bar. He objected
particularly to the first clause, which makes marriage indisso-
luble. Notwithstanding the respect he entertained for the
Right Reverend Prelates who had on a former occasion spoken
on this point, he could not concur with them in opinion. Mar-
riages which were accomplished by fraud ought not to be main-
tained. The fear of such marriages being annulled was a great
means of preventing them. The Bill, as it stood, gave a pre-
mium to unlimited marriages, which would more than counter-
balance all the security for which its supporters gip-pasta it was
calculated to provide. He concluded by moving the rejection
of the first clause.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH confessed that,after an interval
of fourteen days since their • Lordships rejected the principle of
nullity, he was not prepared to hear a funeral oration pronounc-
ed upon it. Since that decision, he had not before, either in or
out of the House, heard any objection urged to the principle of
the indissolubility of marriage. He was convinced that the
clause gave great satisfaction to the country, and he would rest
satisfied with what the Right Reverend Prelate near the Noble
and Learned Lord had said on the subject on a former night,
as sufficient answer to that Noble and Learned Lord's argu-
ment.. ' The Noble and Learned Lord asserted that the Bill
gave a premium for the commission of the offence ; but so far
from that, it on the one hand contained a clause for the punish.
ment of perjury in taking out a fraudulent license, and if the
offender finally accomplished his purpose, he must go to Botany
Bay to enjoy the advantage of his fraud. From what the Noble
and Learned Lord had stated, he should almost suppose that he
proceeded on some of those systems of political economy which
had for their object to prevent the increase of the human
species. Throughout the whole of the Noble and Learned
Lord's argument, he seemed to think that marriage was not at
all intended for the happiness of the parties who were united
by it, but for that of their fathers and mothers.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether
the Right Reverend Prelate who had been referred to wished
to legalize all marriages which had taken place without consent
of parents since the year 1754. For his part he was resolved
to propose a clause to render the montage invalid, if the father
had been living at the time, and the parties knew he had re-
fused his consent.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY'S reply was not wholly
heard. He said, however, that neither he nor those near him
had considered the consent of a putative father necessary to the
validity of marriage.
After some observations interchanged' between the Lour)
CHANCELLOR, the Archbishop of. CANTERBURY, and the
Bishop of LANDAFF,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that he understood the
Right Rev. Prelate to hold, that with a view to good morals as
well as religion, it was proper that marriages, once celebrated,
should not be made void. They said, " thOse whom God has.
joined, let no man put asunder."
Lord HOLLAND observed, that the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack put questions to the-Right Rev. Prelates,
and received answers to them. The case was different on a
former occasion, when he (Lord H.) had thought it'necessary to
ask some questions on a subject of great ecclesiastical import..
ance. Then it was not thought fit that any answer should be
given. It was with much surprise he had heard another Noble
and Learned Lord describe this Bill as a repeal of the ancient
law of marriage. What, the ancient law which =commenced
in 1754 ? The fact was, that the Bill restored a part of the an-
cient law of the country. The- course *of -argument of the
Noble and Learned Lord on this subject was not a little sin.
gular. After all their appTobation of every thing old, they
now told the House that the introduction of the ancient law of
the country, as it existed previous to 1754, must lead to con-
fusion and. immorality. The Noble and Learned Lord woilld
punish every fraudulent marriage with nullity, but that 'very
nullity which he thought capable of preventing fraud was really
the premium-for committing it. In a few instances the dread
of nullity might affect the guilty part, but in 99 cases out of
100 it fell only on an innocent victim. The Noble Lord ex-
' pressed his approbation of the retrospective clause, and referred
to acts which had already legalized marriages by sweeping
clauses, without any of the exceptions made by this Bill.
Hence, he contended that both on the ground of reason and pre-
cedent their Lordships were justified in passi,ng it. He there-
fore voted against the motion of the Noble and, Learned Lord.
The question ibeing put, Lord STOWELL'S motion was
negatived.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved an amendment on the
retrospective clause to the following effect—viz. :—" Provided
that no-marriage by licence heretofore concluded without con.
sent of the natural or putative father, shall be deemed to be
valid if the parties did at the time of the marriage know that
such father was living, and.had refused his consent."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to the proviso, on the
difficulty of finding any proof referable .to the cases which the
Noble and Learned Lord comtemplated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated his intention of
taking the sense of the House on his amendment.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL was not friendly to the retros-
pective clause as it stood. He wished an exception had been
made, saving all suits pending, but that had not been done.—
He confessed, however, that he could not approve a clause such
as that proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, which de-
pended upon proof of a nature extremely 'difficult to be ob-
tained.
The House then divided—
Contents - 18
a Not Contents - 68
Majority against the Proviso —5O
On being re-admitted we found that the LORD CHAwcrt.-
LOll had proposed a Clause respecting real and personal pro-
perty, which was negatived without a division.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proposed again the
Clause which had been rejected in the Committee, to validate
all sales and conveyances of reversionary rights which had
been made before the passing of the Bill. He stated that he
had omitted ithe words for a good and valuable considera-
tion," as they might lead to litigation in orde, to prove what
the consideration had been, but expressed his intention, if the
clause should be rejected without these words, to move it again'
after re-inserting them.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL supported the clank.
The Earl of WESTMORELAND conceived that it would
lead to an inextricable labyrinth, and would, in a still more
odious manner than the clause which had just been rejected,
legalize marriages, but deprive children declared legitimate of
the property to which they were entitled, because a third per-
son had willed or conveyed away what had never been his own.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE contended that the clause
proposed by the Noble and Learned Lord would produce a
monstrous state of things. It would declare children legiti-
mate, but would disinherit them of their property.; it would
people that House with titled beggars, enjoying the honours of
their ancestors, but stripped of the means of supporting-those
honours,—and all this to give the estates of their fathers to per-
sons who had never enjoyed them, and who would thus be pla-
ced in a still better situation than if this Bill had never passed.
If their Lordships were to adopt this proviso, instead of securing
they would leave existing possession subject to a system of end-
less litigation and fraud.
The Earl of HARROWBY defended the proviso.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH hoped, after their Lordships
had agreed to the retrospective clause, that any attempt to ren-
der it nugatory by provisos like the present, would prove un:.
availing. The course proposed was one, which, as guardians
of public 'morals, their Lordships could not adopt, for it would
introduce a system of left-handed marriages in the true German
style, marriages which Save legitimacy, but not property.
Lord REDESDALL contended that to destroy reversionary
rights retrospectively, would be downright robbery.
The House then divided.
Contents . • • . . . . 27
Not Contents • • • . . . 51
Majority against the Clause . . . —24
A second division then took place on the same clause, but