The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

ei Li) tilillff .7-ilti t

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1850.

The Marriages Bill was considered in Committee
last night, and two of the principal (so-called)
amendments of which notices had been given were
disposed of. As we bad anticipated, a determined
effort was made to reject the measure, which had
very nearly succeeded owing to the neglect and
apathy of Hon. Gentlemen, who, although friendly
to its principle, would not give themselves the trouble
of attending in their places. On the order of
the day being called on, it was proposed " that the
House should resolve itself into Committee on the
Bill on that day six months." If that motion bad
been carried, the measure would have been thrown
out for the present session.. It was, however, happily
negatived by a majority of " two" (I), in a House of
84 Members only, and the first formal impediment
was thus fortunately surmounted.
But this did not satisfy the obstructives. Defeated
in their attempt to reject, they next tried to retard
and procrastinate the measure. The old dodge
of - " counting out "- _was resorted to. The
Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Abingdon, one of the most strenuous op-
ponents of the Bill, was ' trying to exclude the
thousands and tens of 'thousands, who had contracted
such marriages between they Ist September, 1835, and
the present time, when, contrary to the usual custom
and the ordinary courtesy commonly observed among
gentlemen, he was interrupted by One of his own party,
who demanded that the House should." be counted."
This artful device, it was -hoped, would have proved
successful. Many persons who had listened to the
arguments of the ex-Attorney-General usque ad
nauseam, apd who saw no prospect of an early con-
clusion of his 'speechi had retired for a short time.
The supposed ppportunity was accordingly seized on,
but without any practical result, the forty Members
necessary to constitute a House being actually pre-
sent. The second quicksand was thus avoided, al-
though the escape was a narrow one, and the proceed-
ing clearly proved the accuracy of our assertion, that
every effort, however unjustifiable, would be made,
which the forms of the House or circumstances might
admit, to delay the measure.
The first real trial'of strength on the merits took
place on Sir F. THBSIGER'S amendment above re-
ferred to, which was negatived a majority of 43.
It would have, been strange, indeed, if a distinction,
so unfair in every respect, was to be maintained as
that devised by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mar-
riages contracted before 1835 were rendered valid
by the 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 54 ; all future con-
tracts, of a similar description, would be binding on
the parties ; those alone that were celebrated in the
interval were to be considered null and void. The
punishment would thus be inflicted not on the pa-
rents, for they could forthwith marry again, but on
the innocent offspring. The Legislature de-
termined, by a distinct enactment, that there was
nothing contrary to the Divine law in such
marriages, for, if snob were the case, they would
never have been recognised or sanctioned. The re-
striction established by that Act being about to be
removed as unjust and impolitic, how, we ask, could
Parliament consistently affix a perpetual brand to a
certain class of children, from which others, born
under precisely similar circumstances, except with
respect to the date of the ceremony, would be free ?
The Word of GOD could not be dependent on a mere
question of time. The decrees of the ALMIGHTY
are immutable ; they are not like human laws, to
be changed or altered according to the caprice
or fancy of any body, however distinguished; we can-
not, therefore, conceive how the House could have
assented to the proposition, or refused to give the Bill
a retrospective operation.
Let us for a moment consider the circumstances
under which the Act of 1835 was carried. On its

introduction it was not intended to impose any dis-
ability ; it was brought in as a remedial and not as
a penal measure. Previously such marriages were
not absolutely void, but merely voidable. The pro-
ceedings for that purpose could only be instituted in
the Ecclesiastical Courts, pro salute anima, through
a tender regard for the souls of the mis-
guided individuals who differed from the judges
of these much admired tribunals. But if a suit was
not instituted during the lives of both parties, hus-
band and wife, no future steps could be taken, and
the children were legitimate to all intents and pur-
poses. Although such marriages were of every-day
occurrence, there was scarcely an instance of their
being interfered with, and they were practically con-
sidered as efficacious as any others. Malicious
persons, or those interested in preventing
children from succeeding to family honours
or settled estates, might have interfered, and
accordingly Lord LYripuunsr brought in his Bill, to
fix a time after which no proceedings should be in-
stituted. It was entitled "an Act to limit the time
for commencing suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, so
far as the same affects the children of parents married
within the prohibited degrees," and the proposition
was, that such marriages should be valid if not im-
peached within six months after the passing of the
Act, and all future marriages, if not attacked within
two years after their celebration. In Committee,
however, a Right Reverend Prelate succeeded
in moulding the Bill into its present form,

and making all future marriages void
The clause was rejected in the Commons, but as the
session was about to close, and parties of high rank
and great influence were much interested in the
measure, it was ultimately agreed to, in order to
prevent the loss of the entire measure ; and thus
was the Bill carried, which it is now regarded as
sacrilege to endeavour to alter.
The other amendment (!) by which it was at-
tempted to exclude Scotland from the operation of
the Bill, and to render the same parties legitimate in
one part of the United Kingdom and illegitimate in
another, or, more correctly speaking, to continue
the existing doubt and uncertainty on the subject
north of the Tweed, was also most properly negatived,
and the Chairman reported progress. The question
Row stands adjourned until the 13th of June,
another delay of four weeks being thus secured by ,
the inveterate enemies of the measure.

. Again, yesterday, as in every stage of its proceed-
the BIN
Ings, the Public Libraries and Museums Bill was
ect of most extravagant and incredible oppo-
sition. If it once
al-
lowable for a majority b
ecome law—if it once become
of two-thirds of the inhabitants
of a borough to
e f
y araite sufficient to provide for
their own and their e -townstnen's intellectual
benefit and recreation—if such an onerous impost be so unjustifiably laid uP on an already
people, it will certainly not be the fault of the phi-
lanthropic and economic Colonel S
and so unwearied
lIITHORP:ver-taxed
So
a
compromising has been his hostility un-
his exertions in this matter, that most
1 heavy burden which the unconscionable
the
able Mr.
ErART would lay upon the l
unfortunate rate-
payers will be far less weighty than that heavy v
debt of gratitude imposed upon the tax-paying people
of England by the tax-hating Member for
For ourselves, opposed as we have always been Lincoln:t::
every species of taxation which either directly or in-
directly adds to the load of the overburdened, and
anxious as we have been, as continually, to equalise
as much as possible the ineqUalities of fortune by lay-
ing the chief burden of such necessary imposts upon the
shoulders of those upon whom it will fall harmless,
we must confess that we had yet to learn a lesson on
thia subject from Colonel SIBTHORP. We had
imagined, it is true, that a tax (now, happily, numbered
with the things that were) which made bread
I dear, and, consequently, hard to be obtained by the