Star.
London, England, 1820-07-20 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON PETITION.

- _.....
Lord ERSKINE rose to bring the City of London
Petition again under their Lordship? consideration.
As its reception had been objected to, he had wil-
lingly withdrawn it for a short time; but upon re-
examining it, he could not avoid thinking that, after
the indulgence which had been shewn to Petitions of
a different kind, the House might conceive itself jus-
tified in receiving the present. He was not arguing
against the objections which had been urged, but
merely suggesting, that as Petitions calling for a
change in the frame and constitution of Parliament
bad, at different times, been laid upon their table,
they ought to be the less scrupulous on this occasion.
Indeed, after what had passed in this respect, he
thought it difficult for their Lordships to refuse any
Petition, coming even from individuals; but he need
not remind them that the one in question spoke the sen-
timents of a great Corporation. It had been put into
his hands by the Sheriffs of London, and he must re-
peat, that he thought it his duty to present it, and he
now moved—" That this Petition do lie on the table."
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was for the
House to determine whether or not this Petition
ought to be received. What they should do with re-
spect to it after it was received, was another question.
As far as he understood it, it directly informed them
that their proceedings were improper and unjustifiable.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose as the question
was about to be put, and observed, that he was only
apprehensive lest, by remaining silent, he should be
supposed to acquiesce in any of the statements of this
Petition. • The truth was, that he did not agree with'
any part of it, or give credit to any cne allegation
which it contained. How the Corporation of Lon-
don should become possessed of this knowledge he
could not readily conceive; but it would seem that
they knew much more than bad come to the know-
ledle of the Secret Committee. He himself had been
a Member of that Committee, and was never ac-
quainted with the contents of the Bill now pending,'
until it was brought forward in that House. The.
' Citizens of London had inserted in their Petition
rather what they conjectured thin what they knew;
and could not be surprised if they met with the usual
fate of those who guessed how facts stood, and thought
those guesses worthy the attention of Parliament.
The motion for the Petition lying on the table was
then negatived.. 41 •
The Lad of L AUDERD4ILE said, the usual course
after such a vote appeared to be, on a reference to

their Journals, that their. Lordships should go- one
step further; and he now moved 4-44 Tbac the Pe-,
;Won be rejected."
The Doke of HAMILTON said, that he.had seen I
a great variety of Petitions#eceived, and laid, witht:
'out objection, on their Lordships table. The present
name from a most respectable body; and without
going into its merits, or inquiring-whether its alle-
gations were true on false, he conceived it better,
with the view of preserving to the People the right
of making known to Parliament their opinions on all
subjects, that the Petition should be received. Other
Petitions, settinforth complaints which their Lord-
ships had considered to be equally ill-founded; .and
containing statements deemed quite as incorrect, bad
been received 'Without difficulty. He should be sorry
if the House were to indicate anything like disrespect
to the. City of London ; and as he conceived that the
proposed vote would have that tendency, he would
not support it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if any person
supposed that by opposing this Petition he had meant
disrespect to the Corporation of London, he begged
leave to protest against any such imputation. No
man had a higher respect for the Corporation of the
City of London than himself; but he did not think
that it was competent to them to interfere with the
judicial proceedings of this House. If their Lord-
ships allowed such interposition, they had much
better not attempt any judicial proceedings at all.—
In voting against this Petition, he felt that he was
consulting the best interests of the Members of the
Corporation bf London, and of 'every other man in
the kingdom.
The Duke of HAMILTON, in explanation, said,
he did not impute any intention to the Noble and
Learned. Lord of acting disrespectfully towards the
City of London. He had only said, the rejection of
this Petition would be a mai k of disrespect to that
Body—( Hear, hear).
Lord REDESDALE observed, that this Petition
was against their Lordships proceeding by Secret
Committee, not only on this occasion, but on any
other which may hereafter arise. It was also against
their proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties,
unless in such cases as the Corporation of London
might wish.
Lord HOLLAND should have preferred that this
Petition had been received sub silentio, and if he had
been in doubt upon that point, the Noble and Learned
Lord, who had just sat down, would have almost
convinced him—(Hear, and laughter).—The Peti-
tioners complained against certain judicial proceed-
ings; perhaps this was not strictly regular, but he
was not sure that if they thought proceeding by Se-
cret Committee to be improper, it was not the right
of the subject to come to the Bar and state that. If
the Petitioners had confined themselves to those two
points, he would not vote against the Petition; but
they went further, they said also what the sealed
papers contained, which it was impossible for theni
to have known. He would not say that the incor-
rectness of a statement in a Petition was a sufficient
ground for rejecting it ; but he could not think. that
the Petitioners had a right to say what was contained
in the sealed papers, unless they knew it from public
notoriety, as from the votes of the House. Now, if
their Lordships received this Petition, they would
agree that all the papers referred to the Secret Com-
mittee had come horn the Milan Commission. Whts.

ther that was or was not the fact he could not say.
and for that reason, as well as on account of the ob-
jections taken to the words which hag been brought
under their consideration, though he wished that the
forms of the House had permitted the Petition to be
otherwise disposed of, yet he feared it must be re-
jected in a parliamentary manner.
Lord ERSKINE said, that he would not set him-
self up against the opinion of the House, and what-
ever was their Lordships' pleasure, he would not
oppose it.
The question was then put, that this Petition be
rejected, which was carried in the affirmative.
MARRIAGE JILL.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved the recommit-
ment of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill.
Lord REDESDALE observed, that the Bill, as
now altered, bore hardly any resemblance to what it
was before; and he really thought it infinitely more
objectionable than it was in its original state. The
Act of Parliament already in force had provided,
that marriages contracted under certain circum-
stances should be null and void : but this Bill would
render them only voidable upon suit instituted. It
proceeded altogether upon a new ground—namely,
that the former Act did not make such marriages
void ; and itself enacted, that all such marriages
should be good, notwithstanding any provisions of
the existing law. It was, in effect, a total repeal of
the former Act. Even' marriages, celebrated in the
Fleet, which was one description of marriages ad-
verted to in that Act, would be now made good and
binding. Then, win, by this Bill neither party was
to be at liberty to institute any suit, but parents and
guardians alone. Those, therefore, who had neither
parents nor guardians must have their marriages
rendered valid, whatever might have been the cir-
cumstances under which they took place. There was
another clause, relative to the succession to dignities,'
which was at utter variance with its proviso. When
this happened, according to Lord Coke, 'the proviso
must be regarded as foolish ; but the enactment was
altogether at variance with a solemn resolution of
that House, as to succeeding to dignities. He feared
that those who framed this measure, though skilled
in one branch of law, had not sufficiently turned their
attention to other departments of it, not less import-
ant; and he should therefore move, as an Amend-
ment, " That the word now be left out, and that the
words this day sir months be introduced in its stead."
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that there was
hardly one word of the Bill, in its unamended state,
to be found in the present. He wished, if possible,
to avoid any objections to the recommitment, but
after what had taken place, he must entreat their
Lordships not to proceed further with so important
a measure at this period of the Session. He mild
assure the Noble Lord (Ellenborough), whom he
should be proud to call his Noble Friend, that he was
so oppressed with the weight of other matters to
which he had been directing his attention, that he
doubted his capacity to do justice to his own views
upon this question. Ile thought, however, that very
little would be sufficient to chew how necessary it
I WAS for. the House to take more time wore they
passed a measure of this description. He lad not the

. ,
least doubt that the learned peroins who had patro-
nized the Bill had a much higher degree of learning
*an he could pretend to, in one department f the
;law; but he must say, that the 'measure seemed to
Levioce the utmost ignorance of the common law of
ithe,land. It had been, indeed, so altered.from its
idriginal shape and texture, that it reminded him of
a case put in some essay on identity—whether writ-
ten by Locke or some other metaphysical writer, be
knew not; but the question discussed was, ehether
a silk stocking, which had been darned with worsted
till no silk remained, was the same stocking?—(R
laugh).—This Bill was altogether wrong in its prin-
ciple: it set out, in fact, with supposing, that in everY
case which was to come under its provisions, a sine
was nece,sary ; that a suit was either now pending,
or about to be instituted ; butt this was a vie*, of
things which vet y few of those cases would warrarl:
It was, moreover, a monstrous principle, of this ilih;
which went to require that he who. so instittmot *
suit should prove more than the ordinary forms of
the la(v demanded of him; and what, he would ask'
agreedwotdd bteo
?the
Nboenneefii tn-of this
the clause,trori,i.ia rticiagitessl‘o.otutlld be
d be
id-t ais valid, so far as this clause could affect them,
as if this new law had never been made. As to dia
precautionary views of the Bill, the marriages it pro-
posed to annul were equally null and void under the
existing Marriage Act. If it were the case of a mar-
riage by license, conttary," to use the words of the
Bill, " to the said recited Act," it was void by the
same Marriage Act; if a marriage by banns, contrary
to the said Bill, it was valid tinder the former Sta-
tute, and valid even upon the declaration of thl, Bill
itself. If the measure now before them did not
amount to a total repeal of the old Marriage Act, he
knew not what did. His Lordship went on to ari-
madvert upon the mischievous effects of a retrospec-
tive Bill like this, whose operation did not go back
• ten nor twenty years ago, but to the year 17251
It made all marriages contracted since 172.3 (how-
ever invalid they might have been in point of law,
brie-ever illegal they might have been in point of
fact)- good and valid ones, unless the parents and
guardians of the parties (although it might very
well happen that many of them had no parents nor
guardians at all) should have interfered, and pro-
ceeded to prevent them. In short, it went back so
far, that this was the consequence ; the parents and
guardians in question, as wed as the husbands and
wives themselves, had many of them, long since,
been enclosed and recumbent within the urns and
.sepulchres of mortality. Yet every such marriage,
however great had been the moral or legal objection
to it, was to be considered valid. Then as to the
oath taken preparatory to the obtaining of the licence,
he must be allowed to remark on this point, that the
ecclesiastical authority or his surrogate, either had
or had not the right of administering that oath.—
Now, if he had not the, right, he (the Lord Chancellor)
must contend, that the serious, prosecutions and pe-
nalties incident upon the commission of perjury, by
reason of false swearing, ought not to be instituted.
This Bill, it appeared to him, went to take away the
advantages of ,legitimacy from those who were legi-
timate issue, and to confer them upon the illegitimate.
His Lordsip concluded by expressing his conviction
that it was a measure calculated to affect the whole
'mass of private property in this kingdom, both as to •
succession and possession ; and upon these grounds it
was, that striving rather to revise it than to defeat its
primary object, he most humbly, most earnestly, and
most solemnly, entreated their Lordships gravely to
,consider the objects and nature of the Bill, and to
allow it to be brought forward in an amended shape,
at an early period of the ensuing Session.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH regretted that his &bit
and Learned Friend who had just sat down, and for
vahose profound talents and knowledge of the law,
displayed throughout The whole course of his long
and useful life, he entertained the highest deference
and•respect, should have expressed -himself so de-
cidedly against the present frame Of the Bill, or
_should not have reserved the benefit of his import-
ant observations for the opportunity of a Committee,
in which they might have been heard with so much
effect. While he lamented that the Noble and
Learned Lord would not allow the Bill to go into a
Committee, he must say, that he was -not less sur-
prised at the course that had been taken by another
Noble and Learned Lord who had spoken first upon
the subject. The Noble Lord then proceeded to
defend the ptinciple of the Bill, expressing his regret
that it should have been so unfortunate as to excite
the Noble and Learned Lord's (the Lord Chancellor's)
!opposition after the mily improvements and ameud-
ments which he (Lord Ellenbormigh) had effected in
it. He nest adverted to several cases, for the pur-
pose of shewing the very serious evils and incon-
veniences of the existing law. Any one of their
Lordships, whose father and mother, or whose grand-
father and grandmother, might perhaps have been
married in the year 1754. was liable by-possibility
—was liable in one moment to be deprived of his
fortune, and perhaps of his title, in consequence of
the accidental omission of some minute form of law.
—The principle of this Bill, so far as regarded the
marriages of minors was this; that one moment of
one moment of passion, should not be fatal
and wholly irretrievable, as respected both the minor
and the parent, but that they should still have time
to recover it. His Lordship finally contended that
it was hardly fair to argue against the principle of
the measure by attacking the indirect wording a
the clauses, rather than their spirit; and declared
that he should reserve any further observations for
the discussion which might occur in a Committee.
The Earl of WESTMORELAND said he was dio
tressed to hear it stated that this Bill might affect
the property of every individual hi the land, frota
the king to the peasant, and for so I )ag a period a
from the year 1754 to the present time. fie defended
the opinions which be had formerly stated iu support
'of the Bill, and instanced many cases of haldshis
which ha 4• arisen under the Marriage Act.
thought the present Bill would be one of the :two
salutary tendency ; it would protect the property of
unsuspecting persons from being plundered, and pct.
vent the innocent from being entrapped and abused.
The Etul of CARNARVON would not oppose the
motion for the House going into a Committee again
on this Bill, because there -were some parts (I it
which he thought would she productive of gnat ad-
vantage. Ile apprehended, however, that the pre-
sent Bill attempted to embrace too much: it pr,-
1)6.-cd a it needy for the put, with provisions for we

• .

t...ture; it proposed to limit the power •of guardians
i preventing marriages, and it provided that mar-
lia2e; ..hoold he valid in cases where consent had
rot' becii hot w here it had bee intended to
he given. flis st o. • est objection to it was, that it
confounded meda fide marriages with bona fide mar-
r7:l.zps. The object of the second clause, and indeed
it spi; it of several other clause.. of the Bill, was eft
convert marriages, that were ipso facto void, into
mariages voidable by suit, and that was a principle
to which he never could reconcile his mind. There
were many other principles contained in the Bill,
which their Lord.hips, with all the legal knowledge
for which that House was so eminent, could not have
time to consider in the present Session ; and there-
fore he thnitght the measure should be deferred till
another Session, when the subject might receive that
attention which it deserved

Lord ERSKIIS said, they were now in the same
situation :IN they were on the second reading of the
-111, When they determired that they approved of
the prituilde, and had only to determine how it was
'en be carried into safe execution. The Noble and
Learned Lord (Lord Redesdale) had mentioned so
many details which were proper matter for conside-
ration in a Committee, that he was surprised that he
had concluded with a motion to quash the Com-
iniitee altogether. The House was deeply indebted
to the Noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough) for the la-
bour which he had undertaken, as nothing could be
snore disgraceful to the law and the country, than
that females should be allowed to go through all the
solemnities of marriage, on the supposition that they
were lawfully married, and should afterwards be
cast down, in sorrow and shame, and their issue be
bastardized. The cases which had bein mentioned
on the first day of the discussion, that, for instance,
of the guardian having given his consent, and of
the marriage having been subsequently nullified, be-
close it was found the will under which that guar-
dian was appointed, had only one witness to it ; and
that of a mother having given her consent, supposing
her husband to have been dead, and of the marriage
being set aside, because the father proved to be alive,
v. ere so atrocious, that if a man should write a book
a •,.1 say, that this wa; the law of Ashantee, he would
b., set down as a common liar—(l/ear, kear).-1-1.!
thought it incumbent on the House, therefore, to go
into a Committee on tke Bill. .He did not wish to
shake property to its foundation, and was willing to
(Jive the matter full consideration, though he could
net sec the source whence the danger was to come.
The LORD CHANCELLOIt, in explanation,
av:intained that no person who fully understood the
common law of the country could vote for the Bill
in question—(Herr, hear).
Lord CALTHORVE was of opinion that the Bill
should be re-committed.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL denied that the House,
because it had approved the principle of the Bill. was
bound to consent to its recommittal. Upon a former
day a majority of the House had approved the second
re.tling of the Bill in question, and the Bill had been
committed. it had now come out of the Committee,
in what state? As a new Bill. Every word of its
c3ntents had been altered ; the Bill which came out
of the hands of the Committee was as different from
the Bill n bids went in as one Bill possibly could be
from another; and yet he doubted whether the Bill
as it originally went in, or as it now came out, was
the most objectionable. NVhat then could their Lord-
ships hope from the recommittal of such a Bill ?
Ile was as fully convinced as any man in that House
that an alteration—that a great alteration was neces-
sary in the law of marriages. He felt the defects of
the law as it stood ; but the present Bill was not the
true mode of curing those defects. The Bill con-
tained principles contradictory of each other ; and it
had this radical fault—that it attempted to blend a
prospective with a retrospective measure. Although
he had a general dislike to es-post facto laws—and in
that aversion he hoped the House concurredhe
would not say that in ho case could a retrospective
measure be advantageous ; but he did contend that
such a measure could not properly be mixed with a
prospective law. Let the House look to what ought
to be the law upon the subject of marriage, and let
them, by a process as simple as possible, make that
the law. He thought that a prospective law was
necessary to the happiness and to the morals of so-
c:ety; and, at all events, if we were to have a pro-
spective measure, let that measure be taken sepa-
rately. The present Bill bad already been in the
hands of one Committee, and had tailed ; and he
sincerely believed that no more satisfactory result
could be expected from its recommittal.
Lord HOLLAND, in the few observations which
he intended to submit, would, notwithstanding the
deep interest he felt upon the subject, confine him-
self strictly to the immediate question before the
House. The Noble Earl (the Earl of Liverpool)
would, as he tinder:mod him, prefer the introduction
of two Bills—one prospective, and one retrospective.
Now he (Lord Holland) would not.deny that the one
course would, probably, be as good as the other; but
there was an old proverb, that a bird in the hand
was worth two in the bush. If he could hope that
the Noble Earl would follow up his argument by
moving an instruction to the Committee to divide the
Bill into two parts, he would offer no objection to
the course which that Noble Earl had indicated—
(Hear, hear). As far as he understood the practice
of the House, the alterations which the Bill had suf-
fered in the first Committee could form no objection
to its recommittal ; and surely no one who paid any
respect to the existing Act, /6 Geo. 11. could urge
such an objection. The alterations of that Act had
been singular. First introduced into that House by
the Judges, nearly every word of it had been altered
by Lord Hardwicke; and, being then sent down to
the Commons, it was returned with scarcely one word
left of the alterations of Lord Ilardwicke. Lord
Bardwicke, bon ever, had acted like a man of sense;
he had accepted the Bill for the sake of the princi-
ple, and trusted to future amendments to adapt it
to his own views. It was impossible for him to im-
piess too strongly upon their Lordships the import-
ance of the present question. The necessity of slava-
tio:l—the disgraceful position of the existing law,
felt not ottiy through the House, but tbrouob the
c•fantry. The proposal now was to recommit the
1!.11 ; and he could have wished that the Noble Lord
"1:u had stood forward as the opponent of that pro-
cc,:ding had dealt an fairly and candidly with the
Ikuse as to have stated clearly and intelliy whe-
Lt.t be was or was not favourable to the aim

Lord TtgIASDALE bad told the Roble Lbrd,
from the first, that he was not favourable to the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND had not, perhaps, perfectly un-
demood the Noble Lard. Perhaps the Noble Lord
would aow state what his feeling was upon the subject.
Lord REMSDALE, called upon, would
trespass a moment upon the attention of the House.
Yi-hen the Bill was read a second time, he had said,
that to any retrospective clause he should be de.
cidedty averse, and that he thought the only remedy
for the inconveniencies of the existing law, would be
to cause all marriages to be performed by banns.—
This he thought the Noble Lord (Lord Holland)
might have heard.
Lord HOLLAND was sorry to see the Noble Lord
nettled that his words had been imperfectly under-
stood ; but could not see upon what principle, the
consideration of the subject in question was to be ad-
journed .tine die, while it was acknowledged, at the
same time, that the continuance of the present sys-
tt:m was highly injurious to the interests of the com-
munity. The house, as it appeared to him, could
only defend itself from applying a remedy, either by
ded at ing that the evil was such as they had not power
to remedy, or that there existed no evil which called
foi a remedy. If their Lordships were satisfied with
the present state of the marriage laws, let them re-
fuse to recommit the Bill, but if they really had
been affected by the heartrending cases which had
been laid before them—if they did really entertain a
feeling Of the propriety and of the necessity of a
change let them indicate and-record that feeling by
voting for the recommittal.
Lord REDESDA LE, if he had expressed himself
warmly, had not been actuated by any want of re-
spect towards the .Noble Lord who had just sat down.
He did trust, however, that the accusation preferred
against him was unfounded; and that, in his oppo-
sition to the Bill, he had acted with fairness, and with
regard to the principles and practice of the-House.
Lord HOLLAND could assure the Noble and
Learned Lord that he had not the slightest intention
to impute any unfair or unhandsome conduct to him.
T:le Noble and Learned Lord had certainly misun-
derstood him ; he had never applied the words un-
fair or unm.tnly to anything which had proceeded
from that Noble Lord.

A division then took place, when there appeared—
Fur the recommitment of the Bill - - 15
• ArainE it - - - - - - 25
Majority - - - - •••••12