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

trienina 2"natt

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1850.

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, bat 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 LYNDHURST 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 ali initio,

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 (1) by which it was at-
tempted to exclude Scotland from the operation of
_

the Bill, mid to render the same parties legitimate in
_ .

one part of the United Kingdom and illegitimate
continue
eiine
another, or, more correctly speaking, to
the existing doubt and uncertainty on the subject
north of the Tweed, was also most properly negatived,
and the Chairman reported progress. The question
now stands adjourned until the 13th of June,
another delay of four weeks being thus secured by
the inveterate enemies of the measure.

lain, yesterday, as in every stage of its proceed•
logs, the Public Libraries and Museums Bill was
the subject of most
If it once extravagant and incredible oppo-
sition.majorit become
of law—if it once become al-
lowable for a
two-thirds of the inhabitants
of a borough to levyarate sufficient to provide fur
their own and their fellow-townsmen's intellectual
benefit and recreation—if such
an onerous impost be
so unjustifiably laid upon an alread
people, it will certainly not be th y over-taxed
fault
phi-
lanthropic and economic Colonel S e of the
IBTRIMtp So
compromising has been his hostility • un-
compromising and so unwearied
his exertions in this matter, that most assuredly the
heavy burden which the unconscionable
EWART would lay upon the unfortunate rate.
payers will be far less weighty than that heavy
debt of gratitude imposed upon the tax-paying people
of England by the tax-hating Member for Lincoln.
For ourselves, opposed as we have always been to
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 fan harmless,
We must confes3 that we had yet to learn a lesson on
this subject from Colonel SIBTHORP. We had
lmagined,itis true, that a tax (now, happily, numbered
with the thingswere) which made bread
that'
dear, and, consequently, .
bard to be obtained by the i

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 had 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 had
been carried, the measure would have been thrown
out for the present session. It was, however, happily
negatived by a majority of " two" (!), 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 the 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
nauseant, and who saw no prospect of an early con-
clusion of his speech, had retired for a short time.
The supposed opportunity 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. TUESIGER'S amendment above re-
ferred to, which was negatived by 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 such 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