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

MARRIAGE LAW.

DEPUTATION TO" LORD DERBY.
Yes t r day 'afferiaciori. a large iand 'influal. de-
putation write I upon the Premier,' at 'his `ofAeial
residence in Do .vning st,ree, represent to his
lordship the' great socitl and moral evils' resulting
from the present stat e.of the law regarding, tb a; in-
validity of marriale: with a deceased wifc'a sister,
and to isipre;s upon Iris lordSldP tho necnay for
an alts ration of the ex is ing law. The deputation
was introduced to th 3' P,envier by -Vi4coriiit Bury,
who had brought in the bill now before Parliament
for 1,,g lisieg these marriages.
Viscount BURY said there was a Considerable
difference between the legislation now endeavoured
to be brought about and theenac ins of an entirely
ne v ltw. Toe prohibition of the.3e marriages was
founded on the act of Lt•rd
,Lyndhurst, but the
words of prohibition in that ac'; are, thatmarria.,res
only previ u 3 to that act are snlosequen.ly
to be abs,dutely void. There is no Act of,P;frlia-
men': which states in terms wh tt (hole vo!d.rWe
m irriag-s were. The Itw cow t., however, have de-
cided that " voidable marriages " include marriage
with a deceased wife's sister. The first case in
which that was so decided, was Sherwood v...Aay,
in which M. Baron Parke gave the decision of the
Judicial Cotntnitce of the Privy Council, and be
found-d his opin'on on an act of the 25th Henry
VIII., which act -gas repealed in the rergn of Mary,
and , here for he (Viscount Bury) not being a lawyer
did no know upon what Mr. Baron Parke founded.
his j udgment. The next was theQuptn. v. Chsdwi ck,
which was- decided on a different ground. The
judgment in that case decided that as the words
"prohibited degrees" in Lord Lynellinrst's act
seemed to g'vr_r a sort of implied sanction to Arch-
bishop Parker's table of prohibited degrees, anti as
m tiriago with a deceased wife's sister was included
in that table, it was consequently void. Of Course
these dec's'ons of our courts of law would effec-

tually prevent a lawyer re-opening the subject, be-
cause a lawyer beginning to argue that point,
would be a; once met with the decisions, lie (Lord
Bury) had quoted, and it would be impossible for a
lawyer to attempt to subvert those decisions. What
his lordship wanted to impress upon the 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Act of Parliament which has been -repealed, arid
that they should not be set against tha opinions
several times expressed in the lloll3oof Commons,
though tho e opinions had net yet been adopted in
the House of Lords. He begged to say, . that the
lately decided c ase of Brook v. Brook had excited
a great deal of interest, and the representatives of
some of the parties in that case were then present.
TIAN decision in Brock v. Brook did not enter into
the question whether marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was lawful if contracted m England,
but whether it was valid if celebrated abroad, it
being taken for grant,d that such a marriage would
be invalid if contracted in England. Under these
circumstances, he (to asl 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 prea nt stands.
Viscount GODERICX forJibly supported the views
of the deputation, as did also Mr. AKROYD, M.P.
Mr. FREEMAN c,_ll-d his lordship's attention to
the fact that these marriages were much more dis-
creetly formed than marriages contracted for the
first time, for there was more mature consideration
and judicious thought by those persons who con-
tract marriage a s tcond 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 deci.don in Br o )k 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 if the leading members of the bar,
who adv'ised him that tlas was a territorial law
only, and did not entail a personal disability, and
that he would he quite safe in contracting the mar-
riage, did, under such advice, contract it. But
now, in con,equence of the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Stuart, that marriage is declared null
and vcid. 118 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-
nusierable families, for there was an equally strong
feeling on this subject among the lower classes as
there was in the higher.
Mr. M. GIBSON, could truly sty, after
having represented large constituencies as well
as smaller ones, that he had never received a request
from auybAly to oppose the legalisation of these
marsiag:s, but he had received num rows applica-
tions to support it.
Mr. MONCKTON 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
•ildny 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 ho determined to withhold itfrom the public
until her Majesty's assent had been obtained. He
(Mr. Schneider) had given notice of his intention
to put a question to the noble lord the Secretary
for the Colonies as to whether the Government had
received the act, and what course they proposed to
Mr. CONINGHAM, 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 cotataining 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 lid by a previous speaker, and added he
testimony that the feeling upon the subject was
most d-ep 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,(K)0 of the adult
inhabitants of Sheffiel.f. That petition contains
the names of nearly the whole of the town council-
lors and alderman, and a large majority of the
bench of magistrates, two deputy lieutenants, and
neatly every dissenting minister iu the town of
every denomination.
Mr. BIGOS, M.P., said he presented a petition
from the town council and all the leading inhabi-
tants of Leicester.
The Earl of DERBY said the deputation would
not expect him to discuss a questien of this kind
on Ihe present occasion. He Lad listened with
very great attention to the arguments iu favour of
an alteration of the law which had been brought
forward—brought forward, he must say, very fully,
very fairly, and very ably. He regraded to so
that his own judgment and opinion, although no •
doubt there were very strong feelings in manY
quarters in favour of the alteration of the latr,...w!s
that upon the balance of the difficulties and possi-
ble advantages and evils, the inclination of. his
own mind was not in accordance with the views
which hail been impressed upon him by the depu-
tation. At the same time this questio.nrt7
decided by the progress of public
as leneral as the
the public opinion in favour of an
the law was as strongthat pub-
°aP nein d muae nns tt4-boleff
litde p
opinionut t o
wouldseemed
be tos u r tehaiatnuoi itve wgi
ta:S e
met
upon
ultimately, upun
the House of Commons,
His own opinion
the House of
that Lord
it was a question of no
he candidly stateddwha:
did not think it ouht to be
political party, an
.nqyu einfluence
H. , for
whateverh.is.
over
taken
part, individual in either house opposition to
a single .
the bill. His vote had hitherto been in opposition
waosual d not Government exert a
to thealtaesratthioengtt ru,tbwuatshceosnhcoerned, a per-
fectly consider
it, so far
andop in en question, both the House of Com-
the House of Lords.
The deputation thanked his lordship for his kind
reception of them, and then withdrew.

TUB SHREWSBURY PENRAGE.—Sir R Betbell has
opened the arguments in support of the claims of Lord
Edward Howard, t the Shrewsbury peerage. When
cha knmy pint wi I be settled no one can tell.
I\lr J. Payne, the senior barrister at the Middlesex
Sessions, has been appointed assistant-judge of the
court.

PiticE OF GOLD.— T a price of gold at Paris is about
3., per inlite, and the short ixchange on London is 55.05
per pound sterling. On comparing these rates with the
En;,Lelai Mint prico of 3/ 17a. 101 d. per ounce for
standard fold, it appears that grid is about 4-10th' per
cent. dearer in Paris than in London. fly advises fromh•
'Hamburg the price i f gold is 425 per mark, and t
short Exchange on London is 13.51 per pound sterling.
Standard gold at the English Mint priceis t_b
London
than
Now n d
York on
rather naur, than 1-10th per cent. dearer inLeo
in Hamburg. roe course of exchange at 109
London fi r Ws at 60 days' sight ti about
between the
with tae Mint par .
which, when compared
e is against per cent.,
two countries, shows that the exclisanfogr
charges
Eng-
land ; and, after making
MI ei! he-
fit on the transmission of go ,
port and difference of. interest,allow
pro
the two ceuntriee. of trans-
....‘ between
the present rate leavti DO