The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-07-03 00:00:00

The Canoe fier whirl HAMPDEN ftii is the nog au, SYDNEY died .. she Seefold!"

'ibe/roctor oo tbispart of the wik. stating that slut was.
Ate widow ofa respectable sergeon, and basin a straw
hat mesufactere both is Finsiand and France, bid met
hey present hatband In tins. when be hart represented
Nowell as being of age. and else had 'nettled He by li-
cense at Dever in that belief. Shirked one child by this
;marriage. and was again in a state of pregaaacy. and
humbly sabmitte4 that if would be a bard case if she
Iran to be pun; shed far (beset of her husband, of which
site was entirely immeent.
The LOAD CHANCIMLOR thought that if the pre.
ant Rill were carried, it wool 4 not effect the sentence
of the Court, but diti not know how far it might affect
the derision on the lAdy's appeal. Notwithstanding all
that had Passed, it was clear, however, that she would
beams. in the straw. ' With respect to the Petitions be
-doebtrel whether they might be allowed to lie on the
said,, as they ought to have been from the parties them-
'Amy, sod not from their Proctors. The Petitions,

*141114 bum prevlossly read, were then witisdrawo.
' 1111thataol
LEA ELLIINBOROUOII having moved the Order of
the Day fur the third reading of the Marliago Act
Amendment Bill,
Lotd STOWELL rose to oppose that clans* which
west to derlare that a marriage once solemnised should
he indissoluble. Such a principle was contrary to the
practice of they ancestors, who took care that the rights
of parents should be protected, and that the power they
possessed over their offtpring should be preserved.—
There was no doubt but that many cases of hardship
might occur; but these were not onineroas, and the
evil attending them world be far inferior to what mast
result from the Bill as it sow stood. An experience of
seventy years proved that minors could Dot marry; and
that they knew their marriages must be unlawful. The
Bill as st now stood offered a premium to solimited
marriages, which would more than counterbalance the
securities whirl, it provided. Every adventurer would
have encouragement held oat to him, to use such artifices

as week! Increase the bomber of improper marriages, to
the ruin of the peace of families, mid the happiness of
the parties themselves. He was ready to admit that
many lamentable cases mast occur under the elastiss.
law; but they bore no comparison with those which
most follow under this Bill, or the miseries which it
walk. cause to society. His Lordship after speaking
for a sonsiderahle time, in a tone of voice seemly atm
tilde concluded, by moving that the first oe preteppedve
AMU; be left out of the Bill.
Lewd ELLENBOROUGH. after so many days lied
elapeed-eloce the Nullity clause had been rejected by the
sosolmoas loose of the House, was not prepared for this
Invoral oration in its h . It had been rejected is
onesequencs of the opinloo expressed by the Right Rev.
Prelates opposite, that marriages ogee soismnized ought
Porn so be broke.. and be had not heard one word since,
is Omit of the house, in. favour of. its revival. The
Noble and Learned Lord spoke of the peewit Bill as
giving premiums to undue marriages, he (Lord E.) on
rary thought that the existing Act gave those
it. It induced men who were desirous of obtalw
rraisillwoman's person, to marry her knowing that bus
morriege could be broken whenever pleased. Taw
iirepperamily prevented sigh JO.
renegers of the prise whish they bad
attempted to emits, for it took away all the property.
from tilers, ant( sent them to pass the rest of their Beam
in Botany Bay. The Noble and Learned Lord seemed
to this'll-that marriages was ordalowl, not for the satin
faction of the persons married, but for thut of fathers sad
mothers; for be told the house of the happiness width
Pparents had derived from the facility which the existing
aw gave them to annul the marriages of their children;
but he forgot I. mention the misery of those childrea
whose marriages bad been dissolved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know on what
authority the Noble Lord quoted the opinion of the Rt.
Rev. Prelates ? and he wished to ask those Rev. Prelates
whether they would consent to validate all marriages
since 1754, in which both parties knew that the putative
father was living at the time and did sot give his car
sent to the marriage? •
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was notiettelsod.
to say, that the Bishops bad in ne one instance dreier*
that without the consent of the putative father marriages,
were valid.
Lord ELLENROROUGH grounded the whole on this
declaration of the Bishops, that marriages once solem-
nised, ought to be dissolved and on these words
of still higher authority, " those Whom Bad bath joined
let nn man put seamier."
Toe Bishop of LLANDAPP thought it very desirable
to establish that principle, but was understood to object
to the connection of the retrospective with the prospec-
tive part of the measure.
Lord ELLENBORMOH contended that the admis-
sion of the principle for the future lay the ground and
the necessity for the retrospective clause. Ile need not
remind the Right Rev. Prelates of thus. words which
they must so often have repeated, but when they recol-
lected those words they must know that to separate per-
sons so joined, is a profanation of the most solemn cere-
mony of religion.
Lord HOLLAND teainteised that the p Bill
vrnm.l 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 itntooraliry must therefore be
prepared to ♦onteud that until the passing of the
Marriage Act at that period, confusion and 1031110..
rality had formed the rharacterisacs of the law and
of the country. The Noble and Learned Lord spoke
of giving premiums to early andsimproper marriages.l
The present Bill would be effective in checking them.l
lit was the Marriage Act that gave such premiums,
' end gave them to the guilty; for it made their crime,
the means of relieving themselves, it indicted punish-
meet and misery on those who were innocent, sad in-1
evitahly visited 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, were founded on
the broad principles of justice. that of only punish-
ing those who had really offended. It was said that
if it passed, adventurers bad only to get to church to
to obtain all their objects ; this was not the case, the
church would only prove to them the road to Botany
illy. lie conceived that it would be a great calamity
if the house should adopt the proposition of the Nu•
ble aid Learnt,' Lad, and should omit the first claw,
which, besides, would reader the Bill wholly retros-
pective. The question—That the first clues be
omitted, was then pat, and negatived without a di-
vision.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then !moved the LA
lowing proviso to the Retrospective chose:—" Pro-
vided nevertheless that no marriages bad by licence
berebeforr, without tlie consent of the putative father,