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

would come to the consideration of the retrospective clausti
with feelings not uncongenial. With this earnest hope, he now
left the Bill in their Lordships' hands; and trusting that the
Noble and Learned Lord who presided in that House, and for.
whose judicial character he felt the highest respect, would
exert his knowledgeand faculties not only in discovering diffi-
culties in the measure and discrepandes in the language, but
rather that he would employ his acuteness and understanding
in removing those difficulties and correcting those discrepan-
cies ; for he was persuaded that by so doing the Noble and
Learned Lord would do more to gain the love andadmiration
of noble minds than by any other step. He could hardly, for
himself, now imagine a more noble task for that Noble and.
Learned Lord, in this instance than to reform the errors of his
great predecessor% Lord Hardwicke.
Lord STOWELL spoke against the Bill, but almost all his
sentences were inaudible to those below the Bar. While he
felt it incumbent on himself to oppose the Bill, he rejoiced (he
was understood to say) that it had fallen into such able hands.
The measure was, however, not new; for their Lordshipsmust
recollect that a similar JIM had come up from the other House
of Parliament for the four last years successively; that it had
undergone much alteration in the very last stage, but failed to
obtain, even so amended, the approbation of their Lordships.
In speaking of the measure, he apprehended that it was not
necessary to point out the existing evils of the Marriage Act; but,
on the other hand, to prove that the provisions of the present
Bill were calculated to remove those evils. With respect to the
marriage contract itself, he still conceived that it was a matter to
which the civil jurisdiction was quite competent. This contract,
for such it was, rested on different grounds in civilised and sa-
vage States ; for in civil society, where the ceremonial stood pre-
scribed by law, and must be well understood, it was necessary
that the law should be conformed to. Parties in such cases,
and so circumstanced, were not to be a law to themselves._.
In this Country, before the Reformation, the consent of a
third person was required, and it remained so in Scotland to
the present time. Many were the attempts made, 'subsequently
to the Reformation, to revise the marriage law, but it
was observable . that they all originated with the higher
House of Parliament, and not in the Commons. Then came
the Commission of Henry VIII. which annihilated all mar-
riages made without the consent, of parents first being had.—
During the year 1677 a Bill was introduced in this House to
prevent such marriages, when a very large Committee was ap-
pointed to provide for suitable penalties, and the Committee was
ordered to examine such persons as it deemed fit and proper. A
similar scheme was voted in 1691, but had no result of an im-
portant kind. He stated these historical facts merely to shew
their Lordships what attention had been paid to the subject,
which then remained in statu quo till the enactment of Geo. 11.
commonly called the Marriage Act. It was very well known
what abuses had prevailed, what illicit and ruinous matches
were contracted, when youth even of the highest rank in the
country
.were entrapped in some unguarded hour, and even the
Fleet prison had its chaplains, who solicited young people to
repair to their altar, and be married at once. The Act in ques-
tion had been in operation ever since, and nullified, as necessary
to be done, such marriages by minors, when made without the
consent of the parents or guardians of the youth. Even as the
law actually stood at the present time, there existed no real bar
or obstruction to marriage. The parties might be married at
different houses, in. Church or out, privately or publicly, as the
form and ceremony were solely in the contemplation of the law.
Another course would probably tend to dissolve or frustrate
good marriages_, and bastardise the legitimate part of children.
It was not, indeed, the Marriage Act itself that decreed the
nullity of marriage or the illegitimacy of children, but it was,
substantially and undeniably, the non-compliance of the parties
so contracting with the provisions of the Act. Marriage was,
like all other sorts of contracts, to be voided if improper and
illegal. It was most desirable, their Lordships must admit, to
have the true character of marriage well determined, ab Judi°,
and this the present law did. Parties so engaging were aware
of the ceremony. They ought also to know their minds; for no
law could obviate all the difficulties that might arise in after
years. Difficulties were greater in those cases where the con-
sem of parents or of guardians was necessary to be had, and
the difficulty and_ importance were enhanced when the con-
nexion to be formed had respect to persons in the higher ranks
of society. All these considerations ought undoubtedly to
weigh with Noble Lords in admitting such ameliorations as
circumstances might call for. When nothing but the mere
consent of the parties was necessary, there could be no dif-
ficulty in legislating ; but where that of others was required, the
case was widely different. When nullity was in question
he should not propose any unnecessary laxity ; on the con.
trary he should limit the time for bringing such a suit to the
shortest possible period after which the party seeking it had
knowledge that it could be instituted. His observations had a
threefold object, and went to the power of the parent or guar-
dian, to the right of the particle contracting, and to the power of
instituting suits for nullity. The proposed measure left a
family in suspense for eight years before it could be known
whether a party had legally contracted a marriage or notain
that time might be consumed if necessary ; and he hoped their
Lordships would prevent the country from passing a measure
which would leave it in so miserable a state. Beside, no pro-
per provision was now introduced to regulate the guardianship
of children—none to prevent a mother, who might have shared
her favours with twenty other persons beside her husband, from
acting on the infant's mind, and advising a suit of nullity or
'consenting to a marriage contract. Such a person was not fit
for the exercise of such a duty. Again, the proposed measure
would leave the marriage of a Roman Catholic in a most doubt-
ful state, and surely their Lordships would not endanger the
condition of any class of the community. What was to be-
come of parties during the intermediate state of entering into
such a contract, and the period when its validity or its autho-
rity was to be decided ? The lateness of the period at which
the proposed measure was brought forward was also a sufficient
reason for resisting many of its clauses at this moment. On
all •former occasions, Bills on this subject were originated by
their Lordships, where the heads of the land were to be found,
and who had the best means of 'going fully into the subject.
He wished the measure to stand over till the next Session,
when it could be taken up with more advantage than now,
when so many momentous questions were still before their'
Lordships.
Earl WESTMORELAND regretted that any delay should
take place in passing a measure which would prevent a course
of robbery, injustice, and oppression. The passing of the pro-
posed Law would not alter the Law of the Land—in fact,
Blackstone declared the existing Marriage Act to be a sub-
version of the Law et the Lend. If that law still continued, pro,
perty would be unsafe, and the legitimacy of the first families
a matter of great doubt. The object of the law was to prevent
clandestine Marriage, and nullity could only take place after
judgment had been given in some properly constituted Court.
He thought the ceremony of ,marriage should be guarded with
great care, and that young persons entering into it should be
sufficiently protected. Now, parties had only to go to Scot-
land, or France, or under banns, and be clandestinely married:"...
and thence the marriage would be confirmed. Parties wish-
ing secretly to marry, could go in a steam-boat to Scotland,; or
Calais, anti have a realized and legal marriage contracted; such
was the infatuated policy of the existing law. The object of the
Bill was twofold, prospective and retrospective, and his difficuls
ties were almost equal on both points. Last year every one was
astonished at meddling with the ancient Marriage Act; now, the
only objection was to the lateness of the Session at which it was
brought in. Progressive nullifies were still however going on,
and would be going on; and if any man for the future suffer-
ed his family to be married by banns, he would do an act of the
greatest madness. There was no protection for them under such
a marriage. Indeed the property and security of others depend-
ed on such a measure as that now passed. A few cases would
best shew the cruelty of the present Marriage Act. Suppose a
tenant for life married in the presence of the King, and by a
licence froin the Archbishop of Canterbury—suppose that man
to have a large family most honourably married, perhaps under
age, but at the lapse of forty years these children could nothe
certain they were legitimate, nor could the persons who lent
that individual money be sure of ever getting it. Suppose the
case of a lady deriving a fortune, then marrying, anti dying
under age, what was to become of that property ? Why, if
sold, the buyer could never keep possession of it. Again, if
the property were personal, how was it to be disposed of?
Could the trustee dispose of it? No. And if such a state of
law did not require revision, he was at a loss to know what did.
He considered the security of all parties would be protected by
the Bill now proposed : all vested property would be secured,
and the remainder-man's interest remain untouched. It was

the duty of theft Lordships to de what was just and right, and;
from the commencement of our history, he took the liberty of
stating, that no one ever heard of the duty of consulting thein-
terest of third persons. The first Act he foUnd confirming
rrarriages was the 32d of Henry the Eighth, when all previous
marriages were confirmed. The first of Elizabeth did the same
thing, and then came the Act of James the First, to the same