The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-05 00:00:00

INVALID MARRIAGES.

Lord Lv N ntiVR sT said he rose to introduce to their lordships
a bill which related to a very serious and important subject.
Its object was to alter and amend the law with reference to mar-
riages which were at present invalid, in consequence of parties
intermarrying being too nearly related. By the law as it now
stood the children born of such marriages were considered legi-
timate, unless a competent party brought the matter before the
Ecclesiastical Court. Those children were invested with all the
rights of legitimacy, unless such steps were taken in that court
as would lead to a dissolution of the marriage between their pa-
rents; and, if either of the parties, the husband or the wife,
died before the termination of. the snit, the legitimacy of the
children remained perfect, since, in that case, no decree setting
the marriage aside could be pronounced. There were very
mauv important considerations connected with this subject into
which he did not now mean to enter. The rule which prevailed
with reference to some of the prohibited degrees deserved seri-
ous attention.. Marrying the sister of a former wife was not by
our code of law allowed; such marriages were illegal. That
was a matter well worthy the consideration of the legislature.
Another point for consideration was the ease with which mar-
riages under such circumstances might be set aside. There
were, with reference to those points, grounds for great and seri-
ous consideration as to whether the law might not be beneficially
altered. It was, he conceived, necessary that the general law
on this subject should be revised. At present, as he had before
said, if a suit for annulling a marriage on the ground of consan-
gainity were not brought to a close-before the death of one of
the parties, the legitimacy of the children of such disputed mar-
riage could not afterwards be called in question. Now by this
bill he proposed to enact, that a marriage within the prohibited
degrees, if it were not made the subject of a suit in the Eccle-
siastical Court within two years from the date of the marriage,
or within six months from the passing of the bill, should be con-
dered inviolable, and no party after that period should be at
liberty to call it in question. (Hear, hear.) As the hiw at
present stood, a man might arrive at the age of twenty-five,
might then marry, and have a family without the least idea of
his being illegitimate; but, if the parents of that man were liv-
ing, and within the degree of affinity forbidden by law, it was
in the power of a party, even from motives of envy or malice,
to institute a suit against them, and, by causing the marriage
to be annulled, to have him declared illegitimate. For the pur-
pose of obviating such an evil be introduced this bill. He did
not think that any well-founded objection could be advanced
against it. He should move that the bill be read a first time.
On the second reading it would be competent for any of their
lordships to state their objections, or to throw out suggestions
for the modification of the measure. _ _ _

Lord BROUGHAM said he felt greatly obliged to his noble and
learned friend for having turned his attention to so important a
subject. The defect which his noble and learned friend wished
to remove was, most glaring, and he only wished that his noble
and learned friend had made his measure more comprehensive.
He thought that it would be well, instead of leaving the matter
to the ecclesiastical court, if the legislature declared that mar-
riages between parties of a certain degree of consanguinity or
affinity should in future be invalid. On this point, when the
bill catne formally before the house, he should state his views
and opinions. He thought that his noble and learned- friend
might, with advantage, re-consider one part of his measure.
He alluded to that provision of the bill which was founded on
some modern acts of limitation, and allowed six months after
the passing of the bill for the commencement of suits. Now,
the view taken by all the older statutes of limitation was differ-
ent. They declared, with respect to all contracts, the operation
of the law should not be prospective. They set forth, that "if
so many years have elapsed, and no suit has been already
brought, no suit shall afterwards be brought," and they thus
barred the remedy. But his noble and learned friend, adopting
some modern examples, allowed six 'months after the passing of
the act for the institution of suits. In his opinion the old plan
of limitation was much better. If they looked to Lord Tenter,-
den's Tithe Bill, it would be seen, that by allowingla certain
time for bringing actions, a great number of suits were instituted
which otherwise would never have been raised. He would advise,
that the enactment should be, that all marriages within the pro-
hibited degrees, against the validity of which no objection had
been made for two years, should be henceforth considered valid,
and should not be disturbed. He would, if it were necessary,
give a longer retrospective term. He would say, let all such
marriages, from after the passing of this bill, or from and after
the Ist of June, 1835, he considered valid, unless objected to
previously; and here he was ready to allow a larger retrospec-
tive term. In former times, limitation laws were altogether
retrospective. Such was the act of James, which extended re-
trospectively 12, 6, and 4 years, with reference to the matters
connected with it. The Legislature very justly said, "If you
choose to slumber over your rights, we will conclude you by
adopting this retrospective operation." Lord Tenterden had
done this in his bill when he applied the principle of the statute
of frauds to the statute of limitations. Prior to the passing of
that act, a verbal communication—a single word spoken before
a witness—was sufficient to take a case out of the statute of
limitations. But Lord Tenterden's bill provided, that the ac-
knowledgment should be in writing; and he recollected a case
on the northern circuit, where, before the passing of Lord Ten-
terden's act, a plaintiff had filed his declaration, and delivered
his brief to counsel, relying on the evidence of a witness who
•could depose to a verbal communication; but Mr. Baron Hut-
lock said that Lord Tenterden's act having passed, the evidence
of the witness was useless, as that act rendered a written
agreement necessary; and a verdict was, in consequence, re-
turned for the defendant,
Lord LYNDHURST said he was perfectly ready (if the bill
were allowed to be read a first time, and if the lordships were of
the same opinion as his noble and learned friend) to make
the measure entirely retrospective. (Ilear, hear.)
The Bishop of EXETER. suggested that some provision should
be made with reference to marriages contracted abroad by per-
sons coming within the degrees of consanguinity contemplated
by the bill. He knew of a wretched marriage of this kind
which had taken place some time ago; and, inasmuch as the
parties were married, and living out of the
,jurisdiction of the
spiritual.court, proceedings could not be instituted with respect
to them. _ _

Lord BROUGHAM said that provision would be made for per-
sons of unsound mind, or who were beyond the seas.
The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Tha.•second reading of the Islington Market bill was postponed
till to-itnrrow.—Adjourned.