The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-05 00:00:00

MARRIACIR LAW.

DE-Pl3-ILkTION--TO-44R D - DE ft B Y.

•
Yesterday affeiboon,a -laiges
,atel ,influen t ial de-
putation wa.itoi upon: the P"
ne/Werlarqt': lais c)f4.'l
resident:el In ,Downiug•street, -to reprelent ,ter
lordship the great social 3.t11 meraleeq,s resulting
from the pseeent state of tl,e law `r4,eiding the in
validity of .marriage with a deceased wife's sister,
and to 'impress upon his lordship the necsss:ty for
an alteration of the exievirtglaw. ,;.Tina deputation
was introduced to the
ePremier by. Viscount Bury,
who had brolight,in the-bill now berere- Parliament
for legelisieg these marriages.
Viscpeint Busy
.said. there. was.
.a considerable
differsnce between the legislation now endeavoured
to be brought about and the enec •ing of an entirely
new law. The prohibition of these marriages WAS
founded on the act of Lerd Lyndhurst, tut the
words of:prohibition in that act are, that marriages
only voi table previ us to that act are subrequsroly
to be abs iluttily void. , There is no Act of Parlia-
ment which states in terms whet those voidebhe
marriages were. The law court, however, have
~
de-
cided that " voidable Marriages include marriage
with a deceased wife's sister. The first cue in
which that was so decided, was Sherwood v. Ray,
in which Mr. Baron Parke gave the decision of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and be
fonndsd his- ()pinion on an act of the 25th Henry
VIII., which act was repealed in thereign of Mary,
and lerefore he (Viscount Bury) not being a lawyer
did not know upon what Mr. Baron Parke founded
his judgnierit. ,The next was the Queen v. Chadwick,
which was decided on a different ground. The
judgment in that case desist that •es the‘words
"prohibited degreera" in ord •Lyndhuret'e act
seemed to giVe a sort of implied sanction to Arch-
bishop Parker's table of prohibited degrees, and as
marriage with a deceased wife's sister was included
in that table, it was consequently voisle Of course
these dec sions of our courts of law would effec-
tually prevent a lawyer re-opening the suli?.ct, be-
cause a lawyer beginning to argue that point,
would be at once met with the decisions Le (Lord
Bury) had quoted, and it would be impossible for a
lawyer to attempt to subvert thosa decisions. What
his lordship wanted to impress uprin ale Premier
was, that these decisions were a sort of side•wind,
and rested upon a sort of implied sanction by an
Act of Parliament which has been repealed, and
that they should not be set against the opinions
several times expressed in the House of Commons,
;lough threes opinions had not yet been adopted in
the House of Lords. He begged to say, that the
lately decided case of Brook v. Brook had excited
a greil deal of interest, and the representatives of
some Of the parties in that case were then present.
The decision in Brook v. Brook did not enter into.
the question Whether marriage with a deceased
wife'sl sister was lawful if contracted in England,
but whether it was valid if celebrated abroad, it
being t aket, for granted that such a marriage would
be invalid if contracted iu Eugland. Under these
circunistancss, he (Lord Bury) earnestly hoped
that the Premier would lend his powerful-assist-
ance in obtaining a revision of the law on this sub-
ject as it at Ares, ut stands.
Virentit GODERICH foreibly supported the views
of the deputation, as did also Mr. AKROYD, M.P.
Mr. FREEMAN called his lordship's attention to
the fact that these marriages were much more dis-
creetly formed than marriages contracted Or the
first time, for there was more mature consideration
and jeldicions thought by those persons who con-
tract marriage a a..cond time than by those who
contract it for the first time. In his own neigh-
bourhood there was a strong feeling on the subject,
and the attention of the people-had been called
to it by the decision in Bio ik v. Brook. Mr. Brook,
whose children were the subject of the hardship in-
flicted upon them by that decision, was a deputy-
lieutenant of the county and a magistrate, and very
highly respected. He, after having taken the ad-
vice of some of the leading members of -the .bar,
who advised him that this was a territorial law
only, and did not entail a personal disability, and
that lie would be quite safe iii contracting the mar-
riage, did, under such advice, contract it. But
now, ,in consequence of the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Stuart, that marriage is declared null
and void. He would say that the people of his
neighbourhood earnestly hoped his lordship would
lend his powerful influence to stop the spread of an
evil which affected the peace and well-being of in-
numerable families, for there was an equally strong
feeling on this subject among the lower classes as
there:was in the higher._

Mr. M. GIBSON, M.P., could truly sty, after
having represented large constituencies as well
as smaller ones, that he had never received a request
from anybody to oppose the legalisation of these
mart iagts, but he had received numerous applica-
-
tions to support it. • _

Mr. MoNcKrox MILNES, M.P., represented the
necessity of al ering the present law.
Mr. SCHNEIDER, M. P. , referred to what had
taken place in South Australia last year with refer-
ence to this subject. A bill had passed through
both houses of the Legislative Assembly in that
e)lony legalising these marriages, and which would
have been passed into law at once but for the exer-
cise of the sound discretion of the governor, upon
which he determined to withhold it from the public
until her Majesty's assent had been obtained. He
(Mr. Schneider) lia.l given notice of his intention
to put a que,tion to the noble lord the Secretary
for the Colonies as to whether the Government had
received the act, and what course they proposed to
ado

Mr. CONINOHAM, M.P., supported the views of
the last speaker.
The MAYOR of LEEDS said he knew that mar-
riages were commonly contracted among the work-
ing classes with a deceased wife's sister, and there
were social evils arising from the law in its present
state. The people of Leeds had taken a great in-
terest in this question, and a petition would be
presented costaining upwards of 5,000 signatures,
3,500 of which were from the town of Leeds itself,
which were obtained by merely going from door to
door.
The MAYOR of SHEFFIELD corroborated what
had been s tid by a previous speaker, and added
testimony that the feeling upon the subject was
mo,t deep and intense among the inhabitants of all
the large manufacturing towns in Yorkshire. A
petition was presented a fortnight ago to the :House
of Commons, signed by above 6,000 of the adult
inhabitants of Sheffieli. That petition contains
the names of nearly the whole of the town council-
lors and aldermen, and a large majority of the
bench of magistrates, two deputy lieutenants, and
newly ()wry dissenting minister in the town of
every denomination.
Mr. Blass, M.P., said he presented a petition
from the town council and all the leadino•
inhabi-
tants of Li icester.

The Earl of DERBY said the deputation would
not expect him to discuss a question of this kind
on the present occasion. He had listened with
very great attention to the arguments in favour of
an alteration of the law which had been brought
forward—brought f award, he must say, very fully,
very fairly, and very ably. He regr, tted to say
that his own judgment and opinion, although no
doubt there were very strong feelings in many
quart(-re in favour of the alteration of the law, wag
that upon the balance of the difficulties and posai
Me advantages and evils, the inclination of his
own mind was not in accordance with the views
which had been impressed upon him by the depu-
tation. At the same time this question mast be
if
decided by the progress of public opinion,
dmeut of
the public opinion in favour of an
gaellineeral as the
the law was as strong and
deputation teemed to think
effect upon
Lc opinion would be sure to
01 ultimately, upon
the House of Commons, an His
avi tse 7-
tap that pub-
own opinion
the House of Lords.a it
foourg
hisht t
owno b be
,t)nt.hi
t wasi a question of no
he candidly stated was that
nilkwei,thatever over
political party,
part, 1 in either house in opposition to
taken as a Govearnndmeljnetdqitdresiri
a single individual, in would not exert any. influence
d hitherto been in opposition
but he h ld
iteration of the law, s our consider
to the a
far as the Government was concerned, a per-
fectly open question, both in the House of Com-.
mons and in the House of Lords. _
The deputation thanked his lordship for his kind
reception of them, and then withdrew.

THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. —Sir R Bethell has
opened the arguments in support of tile claims of Lord
Edward Howard, t 3 the Shrewsbury peerage. When
the knoty print Zvi 1 be settled no one can tell.
Mr J. Payne, the senior barrister at the Middlese*
Sessions, has been appointed assistant-judge of the
court.

Pates OF GOLD.—T, • price of gold at Paris is about
t per rnille, and the short exchange on London is 55.05
per pound sterling. On comparing these rates with the
Enj•sh Mint price of 3/. 17s. lOid. per. ounce for
standard gold, it appears that gold is about 4-10ths per
cent. dearer in Paris than in London. By advices from
Hamburg the price of gold is 425 per mark, an 4.
short Exchange on London is 13.51 per pound sterling.
Standard gold at the English Mint price is
Eng-
land rather more than 1-10th per cent, dearer in LQ c_lE
in Hamburg. The course of exchange at Ne
London r ills at 60 days' sight is about 109 per cent.,
which, when compared with the Mint par betwean the
t ,co countries, shows that the exchange is against New York on
r
land ; and, after making allowances for charges of trans-
port and difference of interest, the present rate leaves
uo
profit on the transmission of
gold e
the two countries, Dither way betwen

9 i;()

,~ ~~.~

~ i 7;:l; ~

t
I.*