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

75,„seat
r,,; partits of gualat,se,; lAA 1,4 tot • AL -
'll
lea-Mors had contracted marriages, and in the year
Act had been passed which rendered such mar-
t
thet • both psst and future, perfectly valid. The clauses
Last
4. et had been framed by the greatest lawyers of
d'rd in dealing with the ease thee under the coriti ther!lit:ti)oerreiafatthe Committee, he (Mr. S. Wortley) a
y copied those clauses into the present 13i11.—(Hear,
Was, therefore, a precedent completely in
ttt,tl,Pcm that occasion. But he believed that a prom-
IN, 'Hen also be found in the Act of 1835, for what-
-404 astieulPt might be made to mystify the opera-
i;tCl that Act, there could be no doubt but
4.'41 effect had been to render valid mar-
°t that of that sort contracted before the passing
tett Measure. Mr. Sergeant Manning, one of the.
obb,_ earned gentleman at the bar, had expresse.d h.l
that there wasgreat harshness and injustice in
higtrtent state of theg law upon that subject. (The
titrnottourable and LearneGentleman here read au
14.7 from an article in the Law Magazine, written by
)ergbeant Manning, in confirmation of this state-
-41. I min; Honourable and Learned Friend the Mem-
65ek" Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) had said that every-
}itt•iltetd been aware of the pas-sing of the Act of 1835.
thst he"'old assure his Honourable and Learned Friend
4hay Wm mistaken upon that point. There were
„,trllpiWts°o3 who had contracted those marriages in
f ° ignorance of the passing of the Act of 1835..
tlle 4°4 Was that, that measure had been introduced in
laiteaatum of Lords in the month of July, and had
ii°42thr()llgil the Commons with little or no discus-
ltotipt a Period when there were very few or no legal
,sesee'll°44 in town. It had been enacted in perfect
4d,e heir
.regar.ded the great body of the people.
of .held
la his hand a letter from a gentleman
hb 841tion, and a very near connexion of oned
that
distinguished Members of that House, and
tad 1„, at letter he found that that gentleman had mar-
pe,,t"ta d.eceased wife's sister in compliance with a re-
41emtr h • had been made by the first wife herself.
b(lsea 9age had taken place on the Ist of September,
hutt lt the Parties ha gone on the ordinary tour;
`ertitr return of the gentleman he had learned for
the arse that an Act had received the Royalasseu
klered! In vat efl august, by which such marriages had
been
and which placed him in the necessity
tathellC itl.a state of eoacubinage. It appeared that thef
th'lttan queetion had not been in any way aware
h.
Iteldiz of 435 at the period of its passing, hctwit.
tkile Peculiar and very respectable position in
aldettLeh
-tAeu'ld been placed. It was true that Mr. Tyler
Nttltir,''' that he did not know of lany marriages of
I,hechm; but it was also true that that gentlemen:s
feel%tor 4chwarden was married to hiw deceased wife s
fee tlt Cot very time. Other witnesses, examined
that
the be°tunaissioners who had inquired into
• of Ile expressed their belief' that the pass-
'Orel Act of Lord Lyndhurst. was not
nn known, and more especially among
tl the classes. classes. It further appeared that
recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench,
mthly tiikare entertainedthis country as to the inva-
itla ba(3-rt"aa marrig inand Mr. Justic e Erle,"a short
!otcore his eleveatieosn, to the bench, had given it as
ttairez4"ril that they were legal, notwithstanding the
trertlly `he Act of 1835. A belief prevailed still more
(1,41 at these marriages might be legally con-
tt Scat
and persons placed in these =cum-
-I'4se.o• uati actually' gone from England and Ireland to
1°1,1(4 tint.l7. in order to avail themselves of that sup-
-I.:Ritttireet-;ll.tage. The Scottish judge Lord Macqueen
" as his opinion that those marriages were
iiteLle-tereo gaud. But his Hon. and Le trned Friend the
e °I 4r Abingdon had proposed a a amendment int
1/444
4tsse. N° h twould be the effect of tha
1.'4 octalcilp-ritit? firs Hon, • Learned :Friend proposed
i 't marriages of that description should co_n-
41Ptitl'alid, while all future marriages of the same de-
04 iv
r4l4th. erfectly legal. Bixt the only effect
t 7.L4 amendment would be to give a means ot
;1;1.14°4 Parente, who were. the offending parties,
Ildrse °old withhold any relief from their innocent
th e,,„'",(lfear, hear.) He thought th at that statement
L'i.the4;"go to induce the committee to refuse its assent
7,,te 11-,lll,eodneent. He should, therebre, only further
Ith'a tte- allele an amendment would be at variance
,hveY principle of the Bill, lie repeated that
hZeta.-;1:,' as it ten stood would afford very material
li„--;ar,ge class throughout the country, and
fhe
nt,r„stoe Committee would not refuse that relief.
,h114,--` 410MPSON said he believed he could affor
h't l'a-,.111d Lear ed Member for Abingdon (Sir F.
LtAteeti`e-i a precedeent, or at least a ease in point, upon
hid le-ill/hit". In the days of Roman Catholic domins-
chtmidtinountr the marriages of priests were p.re-
eitaae be g the' reign of Edward VI. that prohibi-
ae (1,1 ye removed, and had after, rards been revived
B,Ui. Queen Mary, of unhapp_e memory. Now,
eligh tue reign of that Sovereign clergymeny. hadh
• tete°Per tona arry, would it be unreasonable t at
el Mee ages should be declared valid in the reign of
tiktt Moreeeediag Sovereign, Elizabeth ? He could not, at
h tad .•'lt, undertake to say that they had been
.de:
•cluituß ;(1, although he was inclined to think that they
• case he feltpersuaded that such a pro-
se Lei tei only be just and reasonable. But the
Otioe ey' chit Was proposed they should. take upon that
184 bat 41 One of a precisely smolex character._ It
14,ki Sr. fair that a remedy for an evil should go along
r, Pep.4B,viire for preventing its future occurrence.
thg -.Lei said he wished to state, as a
.Dissenter,be
eN",tteat mass of the religious body to which he
e 4 ?d
in favour of the measure then under their
ktiti}444,,,..‘,44tditehkr:,ii andh believed he might fairly claim for
crediteof not being lessreoueseoarrnmeostrlayl
I,Nitti °lust' portion of the community.
7talle theY would not refuse to pass that measure,
ts,7l.tr
wouldxy;vbre,rd_eiiitgion.afford great relief to. man3.7suffer-
ltis,,kailie. • , - • any principle of justices ale without violating
lrt of:,:ultai said it was admitted on the face of the
Z":4°11 et the Commissioners that almost the endtiyreopfopthue-
illje.t4tiand and Scotland, and a large
tetht tuts country, were against the mbeeasiufreounoowo
t;es,,bto be introduced; and on this ground,
the benefit
I ,7 alight protest against legislating for
human
14. i)ier !Nl°, either in i norance or contempt for .
t4e- tevlitlgior had conntgdraeltoendgt-hoheseeriushneiodnsseinntidn:sepnittse ofof
great feelings a
tp eitinduuY of the people of the United Kingdom.
ttdtha according to the report, the Presbyterians
i`teA stabhshei Church and the yatit.
ee;,ll Scotland the clergy, were again
the laity ofthe Unitt.clKingdom divers opinions
veil:ter'', out the missioners thought that the pre-
`lN 'ring smagmainst these marriages. It could not
tit ration t the people had not had ample time for con-
Member stake his repute-
el: for teetiWraould anyHaos
Y on the usertion that the majority of
Lt:l'll4l°Pble Wereeinfavour of the Bill? With regardt to
iZtabr,b"%eould state that amongst the members of
bh
c'aiesi-eu Church, the Roman Catholics, and Pres
tya-
,'''!igtt-iwith whom he was acquainted, there was no
ldual favourable; out, on the contrary, all
.stitielva-°lll had communicated were adverse tJ its
ell 6a Besides this they had the concurrent testimony
111 pr'
tiatinti churches and also of the Jews, against
to -Qiple of the Bill. The question before them,
aohjtileri' was whether they should legislate retro-
sietllfireetf ; Lod
the
eis had.. been advocated as a boon
What did the commis-
-145 t4a" They Psaeiod that with regard to marriages
I,,L•setiatbied since Lord Lyndhurst's Act very few had
4:then•4c2 among the poorer classes. What an E.'.anl"
%41; would they be setting to the community if, be-
O.1„8"s the better ranks of Hs had violated the
:481a ~ of man that which was believed by the ma-
h-"tleat; 'e the law'of God, they took away the conse-
e,liiirecli,r3sth?eir iminalit because they belonged to the.
Legislateyes they might this mischief
Lettrciain, that they would never be able to make
ht Marriages in the eves of the great body
would
it,tt' to t)tire.: of the United Kingdom, and the result wou
aunfie the whole harmony of society.. Upon
11 '44 bads he had not the slightest hesitation in sup-
ditr, amendment.
e°OIiBURN assumed that they were all agreed
lolt~e of the a estion n the supposition that the prin
k and Bill they
had been adopted on the second read-
--tey were only called on at the present moment
tP4rteti,-,W_nether it should have a retrospective and re-
tk etki operation. Why should it. not ? The Honour-
t• lrett •I4e4rned Member for Abingdon, advtherattintgbetyo
Illeotaeat urged in its favour—namely,
etc` t-Jotect innocentchildren from the conse-
(l4l..eeato;lll:_,ir 8 Pelats' sconduct, pointed to the
otor you,'.,z,such a doctrine would lead. It would
tll4.llilzed A said, to sanctio.n. marriages within the
was,
lk• it degree sof consanguinity. His answer
se would Whatever might be
of leek do no such thing.
,raa 13,0 of compassion for the children, the feelings.
-dati such But this was
4 tally revolted against unions.
Dare di revolted
case. They were here dealing with
klilscitttoulivr..ic.l,ass. of
.m.arriages, which they had deter-
Why not, then, for
ttiSt? eAtime take fem. the future.iScotland a man might
tt a 40Ziage at Ytheuenwd that•
h life legitimise the fruits
g,fencubinical intercourse, and defeat the ex.pee
tit•4tEfa°,' those who would have otherwise inherited.
ropo-
lop. e Was not altogether so monstrous p
kp! operP!h,,e question was whether they sh_o_u3ld. extend
4*
th*"°!‘ of the Bill as far back as 18 5 They
C)111 "I'4 in 1835, when Sir W. Follett urged the
14 ° to a
)14Stea4moln the measure then before them, it was
tube the
I%aff_secsat of
o argument against it, that it would
altogether altering the law on the
ltd sill I;4' answer was that the principal object of
t 4 aheadas to secure the validity of marriages which
tiittl42,6,ty taken place, and that as regarded the
le 'a , was not to be regarded as conclusive.
Zttlata -14` time parties had taken the opinions of
Otsee-t le in the law, and marriages had been
s'4l been in accordance with those opinions. They
tht,%rattimlt°ll4 that. if they went abroad, to Denmark.
they went Y for instance, and some had even sa.id,, if
wool Scotland and contracted such marna,..e ,
IL. lea, he legal, and they had acted on that advice.
(Tett..it;hwietilLat, the Lord 9 Advocate in his evidence stated
eo',Mtfei
„,...Ilignaen.t the law in Scotland
.was extremely
0.4441u41e subject. Scores of marriages had been
k 4" uPon that foundation. Discuss the question.
tee that r moral grounds if they pleased, but to as
lql4l th • to •
eei,, the Church.arriages were contrary Divine law,
tne,!itself was divided on the subject, was
enstrous. The Dissenters of the country
him the prr."l a on tl a subject. But he would not enter
of flat the I"'P le of the measure. It mattered not to
Qhurtlesent moment what might be the opinions
thte_ th, e.? or the Dissenting communities. He as-
isb't r;_tan.? Principle had already been adopted, and
stollid tale moon to be considered was, whether they
w' the 3' it to marriages contracted between 1835
hltathe hoens.",ttiine. His objection to the amendment
Ned, not Learned Member for Abingdon was
11:)4* told Gallant°on the precedents alluded to by the
ee Member for Bradford and the Right
to 4tata ti• -ftrued Member for Bute, but on the distinct
be 11 tug entered •
Iti rtyiew., ere,. into in 1835 that the matter. was
'tea it 1.3 y the Legislature. Under such circum-
na vain to prohibit such marriages, for

peoilib,tese egsinet tee inetincts 1
of human nature when they acted in unison with that
which men in their consciences believed to be teamtioned
by Divine law.—(Hear.)
Mr. P. WOOD said he would not bo tempted into any
argument upon the principle of the Bill, but as the Right
Hon. and Learned Member for Bute had made a pointed
allusion to a statement of his, involving a matter of fact,
the Committee would, perhaps, allow him to occupy
th, it attention for a few minutes. He had said that it
was a monstrous fallacy to suppose that the poor were
in any way interested in this question. That there were
one or two rich men deeply interested in it he well knew.
(Hear, hear.) He stated that there were in the
parishes of St. Margaret and St. John 20,000 or 30.000
poor. Hud he been speaking of the entire parish, he
would have stated the number at 60,000. He said he
had taken pains to obtain his information from persons
in the habit of mixing among the poor—namely, those
employed in distributing charity, which again showed
that he was speaking of the poor only, and that he had
only been able to discover one case. The Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman now stated that there were
twenty-one cases in the parish of marriages of all classes.
Mr. S. WORTLEY—SmaII shopkeepers and artisans.
Mr. P. WOOD—Small shopkeepers were a very wide
class. Persons who distributed charity did not go
amongst small shopkeepers. But they were not the poor.
—.(Hear, hear.) The commissioners estimated the
number of these marriages at 1,500, of which there
were only forty among the poor, by whom he meant
labourers and mechanics. That was about 1-35th of the
whole. Now if he took a 35th of these twenty-one cases
it would not give one. He knew some rich men, one he
knew very well, who was continually putting advertise-
ments in the newspapers and printing pamphlets on this
subject, and who had sent him the Times containing the
advertisement, and afterwards an exact copy of it,
printed on a very handsome sheet of paper, stating that
a person who had been employed by the Church Mis-
sionary Society to visit the poor had found three other
cases. On inquiry, however, it turned out that he could
not recollect any of their names. Still if he had, four
amongst 30,000 was not so large a number. But he had
received a letter from a clergyman in the Potteries,
stating that he knew a great many such cases, and that he
had married one couple himself. His answer was, that
he was sorry to hear that he had married people
under such circumstances ; and that with regard
to the other cases, he should be much obliged if he
would furnish him with the names; but he had never
heard from him since.—(Hear, hear.) All this confirmed
him in his view. The fact was that the case very seldom
happened among the poor, because they all married so
young that it seldom happened that, when the wife
died, any of her sisters were to be found unmarried. He
was surprised to hear the Hon. and Gallant Member
for Bradford justify this ex post facto clause, because a
number of excellent people had found it right to break
an immoral and mischievous law, considering that it
had been the law from the time of the Heptarchy to the
year 1835. It was said the law was necessary to protect
innocent children; but the Hon. and Gallant Colonel
refused last year to protect the innocent fruits of mar-
riages with the deceased wife's niece. But, look at the
preposterous nature of the clause, speaking of it as a
matter of conscience. If a man had married his wife's
sister, and had not committed the second immorality of
deserting her and marrying another woman, the mar-
riage was good and the children legitimate; but if he
deserted her and married another, the marriage was
illegal.—(Hear.) Another absurdity was involved in
the 4th clause, which while it legitimatised the fruits
of such marriages, made a reservation of estates and
titles of honour vested before the passing of the Aet,
which were not to be thereby displaced, so that a man
might find himself legitimate, but at the same time
might see his younger brother a baronet or a peer.
Mr. R. PALMER said the question before the Com-
mittee involved a principle of very great importance.
The question was whether they would or would not
accede to the views which were, at least, implied in the
amendment— namely, that they would recognise the
right of the subjects of the nation to say that the duty
of obedience to the statute law in cases of marriage was
limited by the extent to which the conscience of the
individual recognised that law as binding upon him by a
higher sanction than their Act of Parliament? The
principle involved was, he repeated, of the greatest im-
portance; and if they acceded to what was now propose I
they would be holding out a premium to disobedience,
and pointing out a way to get rid of restraint. It was
telling them that the way to make their children legiti-
mate was to disobey the law. Let them only get up
an agitation, get lawyers to take up the mat er,
send gentlemen round the country to collect
evidence, newspapers to comment on their pro-
ceedings and discuss the question, and then—
not upon grounds of theology, but of expediency—
they would induce the Parliament to alter the law—they
would get Parliament to say that there was no obliga-
tion to obey the law while it existed. With regard to
the observation of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Southampton, that a doubt existed us to whether those
marriages were valid after the passing of Lord Lynd-
hurst's Act, he totally denied that any doubt existed. It
was true that there were lawyers to be found in the
country who were ready to give any opinion you wish
upon any question.—(Great cheering and laughter.) He
would tell them how—let them seek the man whom they
thought would give the opinion they wished for, or let
them go to a man of little experience or practice in the
law; or let them consult one of the men employed to
collect evidence; or state their case clearly and send it
to a man who had not time to consider it carefully.—
(Oh!) He could refer to the case of one of the most
honest and upright judges on the bench, who gave an
opinion one way, and afterwards—in a judgment deli-
vered from the bench when he had carefully considered
the law of the case—gave his opinion the contrary way.
Mr. BOUVERIE having given a vote against going
into Committee, and been defeated, considered the prin-
ciple of the Bill had now been affirmed, and that it
would ultimately pass. With regard to the amendment
'before the Committee, he bad no doubt whatever as to
the vote ha was about to give. He should support the
clause as it stood, because hero was a class of persons
who were themselves perfectly innocent, and to whom
a simple act of justice was being done by the present
measure.
Mr. DRUMMOND did not agree with the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had last spoken, that the Bill must pass as a
matter of course. He could not understand that system
of legislation which declared a thing contrary to the law
of God at one time, and in accordanc3 Nitta it at another
time. He regetted that those Hon. Members who dis-
approved of the Bill had meddled with it at all in Com-
mittee. .He did not admit that it would pass. For bis
part he should divide the House against the third read-
ing, and would make use of every advantage in his power
to destroy the Bill in Committee if he could. At the
same time he could not see how they could
refuse to legitimatise those children. The
Church, so long as it could express an opinion, was
unanimous in condemning those marriages. His belief
was that, looking at the fact that the whole people of
Scotland was violently opposed to it, seeing that the
great mass of the people of that country were opposed
to it—(No, no)—he confessed that his belief was that if
the Dissenters supported the present measure, it was
because they thought that it would give another stab to
the authority of the Church, and that it was more upon
that ground than any other that it received the sanction
of the Dissenting body.
Mr. HEALD bad supported the Bill in all stages, be-
lieving that it was a measure of sound and wise legisla-
tion. He was satisfied that marriages of that kind had
taken place for years past to a very great extent, and
adopting the principle that those marriages were not
prohibited by the law of God, he thought they would
not refuse to extend the advantages of the Bill to that
innocent portion of her Majesty's subjects specially con-
templated by the clause under discussion.
Mr. ANSTEY said whatever opinion the Church of
Scotland had pronounced with regard to the measure,
the recent decision in the case of Gorham and the
Bishop of Exeter showed them that the Church of
England had no leading authority or organ by which
to convey her opinions upon matters of discipline or
doctrine. As to the Church of Rome, her teaching
was pretty clear on the subject, and was indicated by
the evidence given before a Censtnittee of that House.
It appeared that the genius of the people of Ireland
was against such marriages; but in England and in other
countries, where the Roman Catholic religion obtained,
these marriages were common; and Dr. Wiseman had
declared that he had granted the usual dispensation in
hundreds and hundreds of cases during the brief period
that he had acted as vicar apostolic of the London dis-
trict. The Hon. Member for Surrey had repeated the
word "dispensation;" but he was too good a canonist
end too good a theologian not to know that there could
be no dispensation of a prohibition of ,the law of God,
but only of prohibitions of the law of the Church. As
regarded the social bearing of the question, he would
mention one fact. In the north of England a marriage
took place since the passing of the Act of William IV.
The man had married the sister of his deceased wife. By
his first wife he had no children. By the second he had
a large family, who were pronounced by the law to be
illegitimate. If the father should die intestate the crown
would become entitled to his large property.
Colonel THOMPSON—Was be a Roman Catholic ?
Mr. ANSTEY said he was. He was in favour of the
clause as it stood, which gave the Bill a retrospective
character, and would consequently provide a remedy for
the case to which he had just referred.
Mr. MULLINGS would ask the Committee, whether
they had considered the rights of other children in re-
mainder ?—(Hear, hear.) Was a brother to be de-
prived of his rights in remainder by the circumstance of
his elder brother having married his deceased wile's sis-
ter by whom alone he had children, who would be de-
clared legitimate if this Bill were to have a retrospective
operation?
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the original clause 111
Against it .., ~„ 68
Majority against the amendment —43
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. R. PALMER took occasion to comment upon
the weakness of the Bill, by the language of this clause.
The proviso, in effect, took away the supposed benefit of
the measure from a person who had committed adultery
with his wife's silt r, and who had been convicted of the
offence during his lifetime. This qualification of a con-
viction by a court deprived the measure of any reme-
dial power in respect to the particular offence referred
to. He wanted to know how this proviso could operate
in the great multitude of cases which arose amongst the
poorer classes of society. Why, to such persons the
law of divorce was practically a dead letter. This clause
stands as a warning against the consequences that were
likely to follow from this measure. Since the Bill hal
been before under their consideration a case of this
kind came before their courts. A man and a woman
were both recently executed in Cambridge for the
murder of the wife of the man, who was also the sister
of the woman. This murder was occasioned by an im-
proper intimacy of this description. If they destroyed