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

• his parents or guardians; but in spite of that
23 ~.11°r8 his
contracted marriages, and in the year
tiaAet had been passed which rendered such mar-
thrs, both Put and future, perfectly valid. The clauses of
di; Act hail been framed by the greatest lawyers of that
de.,;jlnd in dealing with the case then under the consi-
tteera a the Committee, be (Mr. S. Wortley) had
leer.NY eQPied those clauses into the present Bill.—(Hear,
ihat was, therefore, a precedent completely in
otenratphtat occasion. But he believed that a prece-
ter'lght also be found in the Act of 1535, for w hat-
th might be made to mystify the opera-
i!° that Act, there could bo no doubt but
tieg:ell effect had been to render valid mar-
oftlt ° a that sort contracted before the passing
koat,ol'neasure. Mr. Sergeant Manning, one of the
opiiistaled gentleman at the bar, had expressed his
the °a
that there was great harshness and injustice
.ites
Itig.re,eat slate of the law upon that subject. (
eight Ronourable and Learned Gentleman here read an
ilr froca an article in the Law Magazine, written by
kerjcerge.....
Manning, in confirmation of this state-
he f' Ilia Honourable and Learned Friend the Mem-
-1),,d °r Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) had said that every-
114t3'hhead been aware of the passing of the Act of 1835.
thttcould assure his Honourable and Learned Friend
logy ne was mistaken upon that point. There were
No Persons who had contracted those marriages in
The f4ete ignorance of the passing of the Act of 1835.
the aet Was that, that measure had been introduced in
Pli3ed°:l,,e of Lords in the month of July, anci had
atiurough the Commons with little or no discus.gqlen-,- a Period when there were very few or no legal
•;4a in town. It had been enacted in perfect
13 ,clads regarded the great body of the people.
°hi tei'd la his hand a letter from a gentleman
cf thg statt°o, and a very near connexion of one
froa°,,looit distinguished Members of that House, and
tied his
letter he found that that gentleman had mar-
st,.eased wife's sister in compliance with a re-
The mar/gulch had been made by the first wife herself.
tad aft . bad taken place on the Ist of
.September.
bit 0, after it the parties had gone on the ordinary tour;
the first the return of the gentleman he had learned for
then,tiunt that an Act had received the Royal assent
Nit! dt!t a August, by which such marriages had been
li,Zer::`avalid, and which placed him in the necessity
tsitieth'' at a state of coiscubinage. It appeared that the
f
the Ike-trl queAion bad not been in any way aware o
ikelie;,°:,lll3s at the period of its passing, notwitla. -
1,/thieh tn" Peculiar and very respectable position in
:',ldatet-Auad been place]. It was true that Mr. Tyler
'sat that
° he did not know of any marriages of
Ita 01"; but it was also true that that gentleman:s
et,ter erc hwarden was married to his deceased wife 'a
lore ttait that very time. Other witnesses, examined be-
litlbjeete S°caraissioners who bad inquired into that
4e expressed their Wick that the pass-
hlera.cif, the Act of Lord Lyndhurst was not
the nil known, and Lo
especially among
11,htiliicil.orer Classes. It further appeared that
' recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench,
tiduty -Orwi_el'e entertained in this country as to the.
Crt"se marriages, and Mr. Justice Erle,.a short
slteenie;Ore his elevation to the bench, had given it as
Pai44l'°n that they were legal, notwithstanding the
tetier gn°f the Act of 1835. A belief prevailed still more •
~sitedil, that these marriages might be legally con-
„Nice, •LII Scotland, and persons placed in these circum-
-61 e-n"ad actually gone from England and Ireland to
14)eeet-utrY, in order to avail themselves of that sup-
-4114 tairtatage. The Scottish judge Lord Macqueen
I,lPtiP'T it as his opinion that those marriages were
emb Scotland. But his Hon. and Learned Friend the.
the ier fir Abingdon had proposed an amendment in
ttietiednsarate• Now Ns hat would be the effect of that
thkt His Hon. and Learned Friend proposed
t" Past • f
Se marriages o that uescription shouldco.no:
letipti NW, while all future marriages of the same d
auel°l° Were to be perfectly legal. But the only effect
tn aa amendment would be to give a means ot
/Phi!, the parents, who were the offending parties,
44• 14,4 would withhold any relief from their innocent
e,•,'"--(Hear, hear.) He thought that that statement
thas•Nb to induce the committee to refuse its assent
1,1,1te ha:llendinent. He should, therefore, only further
th"ttil tt such an amendment would be at variance
1146 'erY principle of the Bill. He repeated that
_lief ore as it then stood would afford very material
4oNtik'tb4 large class throughout the country, and he
the Committee would not refuse that r
the °4l THOMPSON said he believed he couldeit t
afford
:10.„411d Learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F.
L'ateo,4l7,-) Precedent, or at least a ease in point, upon
17,1, i 1,8 i". In the days of Roman Catholic domina-
-oeitetia:ootintry, the -marriages of priests were pro-
!' 4
,_during the reign of Edward VI. that
IC the di°een removed, and had afterwards been revived
IL due, /8 of Queen Mary, of unhappy memory. Now,
l'Otteelle-tg the reign of that Sovereign clergymen had
thetap tomarry would it be unreasonable theft
s ee'rrises should be declared valid in the reign o
;41red -:nend ing Soverei n, Elizabeth ? Ho could not, at
undertakge to say that they had been de-
although he was asnclined to think that they
s-( i
Idi•
nc, la any case he felt persuaded that such a pro-
,Iv°111(1 onl be just and reasonable. But the
iscot: hick it was proposed they should take upon that
at wag one of a precisely similar character. It
"Lth 7., 'sir that'a remedy for an evil should go along
kr% -',,e,ltsure for preventing its future occurrence.
Lekt 't,"•-e,TO said ho wished to state, as a Dissenter,
qtlR tcie greet mass of the religious body to which ho 1:1.-r
et.kiieci:efe in favour of the measure then under their
ti,atuin, credit believed he might fairly claim or.
tats as'''Y the of not being less religious or morai
ePse-11Y (Aber ()rhea of the community. lie earnestly
4-th they') would not refuse to pass that measure,
tog, farh.,ved it would afford great relief to many suffer-
m"tilits'l'les, without violating any principle of justice,
It Y, or religion
11t? 17, It said it was admitted on the face of the
1141tLeithe Commissioners that almost the entire popu-
°Ple ofreland and Scotland, and. a large boduyreolntoh,se,
4(511%1it this country, were against the meas.
eta
t., bto be introduced; and on this ground, if on no
'314 fA"e alight protest against legislating for thefo hbenefit
iii who, either in ignorance or contemp.
;14 11;11° laws had contracted these unions
.despittse ofof
;)CU3Us fe, I' gand long-cherished sentiments
• rt:iat body eofinee people of the United Kingdom..
;If an,d, according to the report, the great majority
tad Established Church and the Presbyterians,
4teot'tt Scotland the clergy, wore
• againstoinions
leiretalsat the laity of the United Kingdom divers p
Llttlio,'"in nut the commissioners thought that the re-
iTaed feet the commissioners thought that the pre-
hug was against these marriages.
time
Itlpno.t
-„Rtet,l,;.nat the people had not had ample ie fore on
iZa• Would lei
Hon. Member stake his repute-
'se ," accuracy n the assertion that the majority of
IreiriaPle were in favour of the Bill? With regard to
Ile could state that amongst the members of
hthe
'te,ri4aellaßtosaw",e.d._ Church, the Roman
.Catholics, and res
; 114 whom he was acquainted, there was not a
• •kauividual favourable; but, on the contrary, all
I)„l,4tiew,„"c'ru he had communicated were adverse to its
411 (T, Besides this they had the concurrent testimony
the ~"Istian churches, and also of the Jews, against
tew:riociple of the Bill.' The question before them,
a)ect;,l,l was whether they should legislate retonrno-
and this had been advocated as a
lirr b
congers
e(ils 00 the poor. What did the caormrtmis_
aes
Y? The' that wit re to
lalt,:teted since Loyrdsaid Lyndhurst'sh Acgtardvery few ew had
pie tell" among the poorer classes. What an abale-
s•ettie would they be setting to the community if,
rseirg°as in the better ranks of Ho had violated the.
terms to !a' of man, that which was believed by the ma.
bet: co the law of God, they took away the contshee
liii.et.'llof their criminality because they belonged
.to _
1'41,0111a :La's ? Legislate as they might this mischief
-,"Lea u-netalain that they would never be able to make
L'ePe-aii()_rusoilarriages in the eves of the great body of
to ti" of the United Kingdom, and the result would
,'ese p,!range the whole harmony of society. Upon
vc'tti ,beds';e he had not the slightest hesitation in sup-
amendment.
amendment
dir; ()CIC•I3URN assumed that they were all agreed
Ple %es the quaation on the supposition that the pridn-
'hg, °L the 13111 had been adopted on the second rea -
to det4ad they were only callei on at the present moment
temiti; e whether it should have a retrospective and re-
shit, Z"ta operation. Wh should it not ? The Honour-
the.atld Learned Membeyr for Abingdon, adverting to
64Bhrtgt°41eut urged in its favour—namely, that thseey.
'Net, "° Protect innocent children from. the conthe
of their misconduct, pointed to
teat parents'
Ititloee to which such a doctrine would lead.
.It
.would
kohibiY,°,l4. he said, to sanction marriages within the
teat degree sof consanguinity. His answer was,
• 'ceiti would do no such thing. Whatever might be
:01tel-eetc;llll_,gs of compassion for the children, the feelings
revolted against such unions. But this was.
par „ y different case. They were here dealing with.
kiperular class of marriages, which they had deter
1,1115 Dat° legitimise for the future. Why not, then,. for
ot‘raierarti?ag 'erhey knew that in Scotland a man might
n at the end of his life legitimise the fruits
ttioconcubinical intercourse, and defeat the expea
414, of those who would have otherwise inherited.o.
action, 'ore it was not altogether so monstrous a prop
The question was whether they should extend
ltoe:Peration of the Bill as far back as 1835. They
4014 e that in 1835, when Sir W. Follett urged the
t° adoPt the easure then before them, it wasd
have atbl" as an argument against it, that it wou
Ittibtee," Qffect of alto ether altering the law on the
the llis answer was that the principal object of
to secure the validity of marriages which
ti 4 tfillread; „ ,
taken place, and that as regarded the
" was not to be regarded as conclusive.
Persona • that time parties had taken the opinions of
k°titetiaeat_,arned in the law, and marriages had
They
o''sd in accordance with those opinions. an
qe been told tat if they went abroad, to Denm.
_ark.
they ,CrusinY forknstance, and some had even said it
th,„ "eta to Scotland and contracted such marriages,
114 licalld be legal, and they had acted on that advice.
that new that the Lord Advocate in his evidence stated
ki°llbittlf„h,is judgment the law in Scotland was extremely
°titra,u*: °II the subject. Scores of marriages bad been
'4l loci d upon that foundation. Discuss the question
11111 e
that 4' or moral grounds if they pleased, but to as-
th
tv. °se Marriages were contrary to law,
Peri,e,,“e Church itself was divided on the subject, was
Were ''Y Monstrous The Dissenters of the country
ttlielleaapirrnittou. on he subject. But he would not enter
°tat;
one
:iytthhqftetuetschrieple of the measure. It mattered not to
the „, present moment what might be the opinions
sekeok•ourch or the Dissenting communities. He
principle had already been adopted, Ransil-
Otile nhi.. !On to be considered was, whether they
07d the ;.,"rty_ It to marriages contracted between 1835
b!,the tro.4eLt time. His objection to the amendment
40hed, eettt'onaind Learned Member for Abingdon was
". arid YOO the precedents alluded to by the
°h, and e 'milt Member for Bradford and the Right
a.aderata;kearned Member for Bute, but on the distinct
'l°l sere,` g. entered into in 1835 that the matter was
an it :ea 1?y the Legislature. Under such =cum-
'?" 14 vain to prohibit such marriages, for