Star.
London, England, 1822-07-03 00:00:00

MARRIAGE ACT.

Lord ELLEN'BOROUGH having moved the Or-
der of the Day for the third reading of the Alairiage
Act Amendment Bill,

Lord.STOWELL moved that the first clause, that
which establishes the principle that marrianes once
solemnized are indissoluble, be omitted. He con-
tended that civil society had a right to prescribe
what was a valid marrial4e, and that it could never
have been the intention of the Right Reverend Pre-
lates, who had spoken on a former night on the sub-
ject, to maintain that improper marriages were puri-
fied and made good by the ceremony of the Church,•
notwithstanding all that might have preceded it. He
then took a general view of the measure, and stated
that the-cases which had been used as its ground-
work were not so hard as they had been represented.
In most of them cohabitation had ceased tor many
years, anti the annulling of the marriage was sought
either as a relief from the debts and persecutions to
which one of the parties had been subjected by the
licentiousness of the other, or as a cheaper process
than a Divorce Bill. He complained that all the god
produced by the Marriage Act as it now stood, and
the misery from -which he had relieved fathers and
families, were kept out of view, whilst a few cases of
hardship were blazoned forth with detestation and
horror. The present measure said to minors and ad-
venturers, " we put difficulties in your way, but once
get to Church and you are safe, and you shall enjoy
the fruits of fraud and imposture." A Bill founded
on such a principle afforded a premium to unlimited
marriages, which would more than cwunterbalance
the securities which it provided for the prevention of
improper marriages.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, after so many days
had elapsed since the nullity clause had been rejected
by the unanimous sense of the House, was not pre-
pared for this funeral oration in its honour. It had
been rejected in consequence of the opinion expressed
by the Right Reverend Prelates opposite, that mar-
riages once solemnized ought never to be broken, and
he had not heard cite word s;::ce, in or out of the
House, in favour of its revival. The Noble.and
Learned Lord spoke of the present Bill as giving pre-
miums to undue marriage,: he (Lord Elienborough)
on the contrary, thought that the existing Act gave
those premiums. It induced men who were desirous
of obtaining a wonidn's person to marry her, knowing
that her marriage could he broken whenever they
pleased. The present Bill not only prevented such
immorality, but also deprived adventurers of the
prize which they had attempted to
gain, for it took
away all the pre perty from them, and sent them to
pass the rest of their lives in Botany Bay. The Noble
' and Learned Lord seemed to think that marriage was
ordained, not for the satisfaction of the persons mar-
vied, but for that of fathers and mothers; for he told
• from the facility .which the existing law port them
to annul the marriagCs.of their children;
.btit he for-

1

F
x

got to mention the misery of those children whose
•
marriages had been dissolved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know on
what authority the Noble Lord quoted the opinion of
the RiAt Reverend Prelates ? and he w ished to ask
those Revei end Prelates whether they would consent
to validate all marriages since 1754, in which both
parties knew that the putative father was livins at the
time and did not give his consent to the marriage?
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that the
Bishops had in no one instance declared that without
the consent of the putative father marriages were valid.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH grounded the whole orr
this declaration of the Bishops, that marriages once
solemnized ought never to be dissolved ; and on those
words of still higher authority—" Those whom GOD
bath joined, let no man put asunder.
Toe Bishop of LLANDAFF thought it very desi-
rable to establish that principle, bit objected to the
connection of the retrospective with the prospective
part of the measure.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that in the ad-
mission in the principle for the future lay the ground
and the necessity for the retrospective clause. He
need not remind the Right Reverend Prelates of those
wor.is which they must so often have repeated ; but,
when they recollected those w.rds, they must know
that to separate persons so joined is a profanation of
the most solemn ceremony of religion.
Lord HOLLAND maintained that the present
Bill would only replace the law in the state in which
it was before 1754. Those who said that it would be
a state of confusion and immorality must therefore
be prepaied to contend that until the passing of the
Marriage Act at that period, confusion and immo-
rality had formed the characteristics of the law and of
the country. The Noble and Learned Lord had
sppken of giving premiums to earlyand improper mar-
riages. The present Bill would be effective in check-
ing them. It was the Marriage Act that gave such
premiums, and gave them to the guilty ; for it made
their crime the means of relieving themselves, it in-
flicted punishment and misery on those who were in-
nocent, and inevitably vi • ited in all cases those who'
could be no parties to guilt, because they were then
unborn—the progeny arising from such marriages.
The clauses of the present Bill, on the contrary, wet e
founded on the broad principle of justice, that of only
punishing those who had really offended. It was
said that if it passed, adventurers had only to get to
church to obtain all their objects this was not the
case, the church would only prove to them the toad to
Botany Ilay. Ile conceived it would be a great cala-
mity if the House should adopt the proposition of the
Noble and Learned Lord, and should omit the first
clause, which, besides, would render die Bill wholly
retrospective.
The question—That the first clause be omitted,
was then put, and negatived without a division.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the fol-
lowing provi,o to the retrospective clause:
" Provided rwvartheless that no marriages had by license
herthefore, without the consent of the putative father, shall be
deemed to be valid, when butt parties at the time of their mar-
riage knew th.t the putative father was living, and did not give
his consent to the inatriitge."
Lo,d ELLEN EOROUGH thought that when the
Noble and Learned Lord considered the difficulty of
obtaining pool's that such knowledge was possessed
by the parties at die time uf their marriage, lie would
see that his clause could only wild to create con-
fusion. and would easily anticipate the judgment of
the House upon it.
The Eatl of LIVERPOOL was certainly not a
fiend to the retrospective clause, as far as it was car-
ried by the present Bill, and if the Amendment pro-
posed had been one embracing suits now pending, it
would have had his support ; but considering the dif•
ficulty of procuring proofs of the personal kaow-
ledge of patties at a distance of sixty or seventy years,
he could not agi ee to such a clause as that moved by
the Noble and Learned Lord. The House divided—
Contents 18
Not Contents - 68
Majority against the proviso —5O
On the re-admission of strangers it was found that
the LORD CHANCELLOR had proposed a clause re-
specting real and personal property, which was ne-
oatived without a division.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proposed again
the clause which had been rejected in the Committee,
to validate all sales and conveyances of reversional v
rights which had been made before the passing of the
Bill. He stated that he had omitted the words " for
a good and valuable consideration," as they might
lead to litigation in order to prove what the consi-
detation had been, but expressed his intention, if the
clause should be rejected without those words, to
move it again after re-inserting them.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL supported the clause.

The Earl of WESTMOIRLAND conceived that it
would lead to an inextricable labyrinth, and would,
in a still more odious manner than the clause whiCh
had just been rejected, legalize marriages, but de-
prive children declared legitimate of the property to
hich they were entitled, because a third person had
willed or conveyed a..s ay what had never been his own !
The Marquis of LA NSDOWN contended that the
clause proposed by the Noble and Leained Lord
would produce a monstrous state of things. It would
declare children legitimate, but would disinherit
them of their property : it would people that House
with titled beggars, enjoying the honours of their an-
ce.tors, but stripped of the means of supporting those
honours, and all this to give the es! ates of their fa-
thers to persons who bad never enjoyed them, and
who would thus be placed in a still better situation
than if this Bill had never passed. If their Lordships
were to adopt this proviso, instead of securing, they
would leave existing possessions subject to a system of
endless litigation and fraud.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH hoped, after their Lord-
ships had agreed to the retrospective clause, that any
attempt to render it nugatory by provisos like the
present, would prove unavailing. The course pro.,
posed was one, which, as guardians of public morals,
their Lordships could not adopt, for it would intro-
duce a system of left-handed marriages in the true
German style, mai riages which gave legitimacy, but
not property.
Lord ItEDESDALE contended, that to destroy
reversionary rights retrospectively, would be down.
right robbery.—The House then divided—
Contents - 27
Not Contents
Majority against the Clause —24
A second division then took place on the same

!clause, but with, the addition of the words, ig for a
'good and valuable consideration."
The Earl of HARROWBY defended the proviso.
Contents
Not Contents 48
Majority against the Clause —l7
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" My Lords, ten
days ago, I believe, this House possessed the good
opinion of the Public, as the mediator between them,
and the laws of the country. If this Bill pass to-night,
I hope in GOD that this House may still have that
good opinion ten days hence ; but, to say the best of
this measure, it is neither mere nor less than a legal
robbery, so help me Got)! I have but a short time
to remain with you, but I trust it will be hereafter
known that I dies not lend my assistance to this Act,
r but used every means in my power to prevent its pass-
ing into a law."---Some verbal amendments having
been made in the preamble.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that this Bill do
pass.—The House then divided:
Contents 41
Not Contents 18
Majority in favour of the Bill —23
The House adjourned at Half-past Nine.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
General GROSVENOR presented a Petition from Preston;
in Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the Leather Tax.—Or-
Idered to lie on the table.
Mr. DENMAN presented a Petition front a Person who has
contributed to the relief of the suffering Irish, requesting that Mi-
nisters will state to the country why they have not foreseen and
prevented the calamities under which that country suffers.—Or-
dered to Ile on the table.
The Salt Duties Repeal Bill was read a second time and or-
dered to be committed to-morrow, after a few words from Mr.
Cuftwxs, in favour of a total repeal of the Tax.
The Irish Grand Jury Presentments Bill was read a third
time.ind passed.
The Scotch Registers Bill went through a Committee.—Re-
port to-ntorrow.
The Stamp Duties Bill went through a Committee.—Report
to he taken into consideration on Monday.
The Scotch Juries Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. K F.N NE DV presented a Petition from the Tanners of
Kilmarnock, praying for a total repeal of the Leather Tax.—Or-
dered to lie on the table.
Mr. LEN NA RD presented a Petition front Ipswich, com-
plaining
of an Act passed in the present Session, imposing an ad-1
ditionii duty on Malt Licenses.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH presented a Petition front an
Attorney at Knaresborough, stating that he bad been appointed
an Attorney of the Insolvent Court; that he was desired to re-
turn his appointment, in order to its being qualified ; and that it
was then returned to him, limiting his practice to Knaresbo-
rough. Ile contended that the Court had no power to limit his
practice, though it ntilit strike hint off the Roll if he were
guilty of malpractices.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the
table and be pruned.
Mr. CU It WEN .wished to know whether the Right lion.
Gentleman opposiw, was determined to oppose his (Mr. Cur-
wen's) proposal fur the total repeal of the Salt Tax at the end
of two years?
The CII A NCE.LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
was happy to sly, that on account of tilt• probably increasing
state of the littrettile, he thought he might safely consent to the
repeal at flu end of the time mentioned by the llenuurable
Meinher—( [fear, hear).
Mr. N rresented a Petition from the Mutual In-
surance Office, praying that they might be protected front the
effect of the Stamp Duties Bill.
After a few words front the Cnnsicit.xon of the EXCIIIQUER,
Mr. 13nornr, and 37.. CALCMA t, the Petiticn was ordered to
be printed.