The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-17 00:00:00

@"
+.~~:~

.

r,

7

'
• :
.c •

, ---
- • • well,. Boulanger (3 Vethy, jun. 417) ; bat on a &c-
-itron of Lord Eliettborougli,ou the quotation of Melan
v. Duke de Fitzjames, in Imlay r. Ellessen (2 rest.
4.i.;). He also quoted the case of Williems r. Jones,
East. 439), and a later case of the s:mo nature,
not yet reported, of which he had been favoured with
notes by Mr. Scarlett ; but in which one of the
Judges now observed to Mr. Brougham, he thought
both parties had been in Jairtaica together. The
learned Counsel then proceeded to argue, that the
law' of the country where a man Was rOrroviiiiiig,
claimed tq be the rule of his conduct ; as he sub-
jected himself the moment lie entered it to the in.
crmitnufla, he had a right to the commuda. He then-
rVversed the case, and .supposed a Scotch marriage
croning into an English Ecclesiastical Courts, prov-
ing ,
adultery, and claiming a divorce rineulo maid-
" mon ii. The answer would be, "We can't grout it
pai." The claimant would reply—" if we had
been married in England you might refuse, but we
see married in Scotland." Still the answer would
be, " Whatever remedy you may have in your oe n
country, you can't claim it here." And up)ii the
Same principle the divorce was. granted, when sought
in Scotland, upon an English Marriage. •After
our-
. Suing this argument, 'he' asked, as the English law
'recognised the contract of a Scotch marriage, why
it should except to acknowledge the dissolution or
NI-Initiation of that contracts No one doubted that
the contract was_ good here ; why was there any
eseeptiott as. to the moiler in which its validity
• should terminate? Upon the same principle, of
giving effect to a foreign contract, the English law
ought to say, that the parties 'were no longer mar-
ried, but bad reverted to their singleness. As these
parties ceased, in the eye of the English law, to be
single, only when the Scotch law said they were
married: whys did tbey not cease to be married when
the Scoich law said they evre again single ? Was it
.110 inconvenience or absurdity, that a Mall s!!wi ?I be
said to be single ox'••• rried only in rcspec..ii :
that when he is isi'ene degree of latitude, he should '
twine from the chains of hiatrimony, a:ul subject to
its burdens when in another ? that if he u.;:ruie, oLe
foot to tine right of a certain line, lie should incur
felony ; and one foot to the left, should lie perform-
ing
a laudable and holy act? The very definition of
a man's status was, the qualities which belong to his
person, naturally inherent in or legally attached to !
hint; and which travel about with him, wherever he
goes. Was there nothing absurd in saying, that this!
status should not travel about with hint, but that he '
should be either clothed a ith or stripped of it, at.
cordingly as he inhabited one part of the kingdom or ;
another ? Hence the principle which induced one
country to recognise the laws of another; if there
were no such thing as trading, or travelling, it would
be useless ; and Courts cf Justice would have no-1
thing to do, but to ascertain hew far their geographi..•
cal jurisdictions extended..
Lord ELLENaouovox.—ln China, if a maucensi.
dens his family too large, he may drown One or more
of Ms childreu; do you mein to contend that a Chi-
nos* may safely sic that ill the River Thames?
Mr. 1314104114 X extended his principle to civil
cases only, not to criminal. if the present Wen-'
dant had done what would be a criminal act in all '
countries, the cane would:be different; hut-the pre-
sent indictment did not accuse him of felony in mar.
rying 13., hot that being already Married to C. he had
been guilty of felony in marrylog IL Then cams
the question,' whether be was married to C. at the
time. In the case put by Lord nienborough, the
criminal question was the principal, and there was no !
cieil matter at all: here the civil question was the
mein, and the crimival ; tcidental. . lie then pro.
upon the subject of slates to quote : Huber '
de cuotflidn kzung dircrsarunr fn dirersis impel-Ur, in
his Prat shays Air. Runs. b. 1. 3. tit. sect. 2.
Lord ELLENinsoUGIi adverted to the case of So.
inenett; the negro, in which the kz loci waS held in. '
applicable to slavery. am.; ..4 though a negro was
brought from a country in *Melt he wr.. a
slave, yet be teased to be so the I/11111.20t sus master
carried his into one where biatery was not permit.
ted ; and maid that so, when tivrillatid was the De-
fesidaitt's resident country pr.) tentpore, the marriage
had been dissolved, but ice mill not adopt that di- ,
voree paramount. The relation of parent and
child, his Lordship added, was'universal ; but sup-
- pose the authority of the old Roman law was given
by any country to a father over a child, were we to
abide by our 9nn law, or adopt that, in•any in-
stance.
.Mr. BROUGHAM said, that that was exactly his
contention in favour of general and not particular
right.
Lord Eutratottouen—llear is a general indis.
Mr. Ilitouuil tit.—lll the case put by his Lord-
hip, if the question were, whether parent or tint, we
should he bound to decide the legitimacy by their
taw ; and here the question was whether married or
The relations of parent and child, and husband
and wife, wrest ho'd all over the -world. • The nearest
case of /muss to the present was one of Crawford
Patrick, Whii:h the Learned Counsel himself had the
honour to argue heforo the House of birds, Session
Ilto7-13. It was a Scotch appeal, and the Chancellor ;
decided that the status was the same in whatever
country. The marriage in that case took place in ,
America, where the English law prevails; and the
questiou was, whether a son should inherit estates in
Scotland; who was born before the.marriage, but tt he
would nevertheless have. been legitimate by the law
of Scotland. The MOWN decided that the status, or
legitimacy* of the son, referred to the country where
he was born, and not where he would have taken
lands, and he was therefore illegitimate. There the
case of the Chinese was put by Mr. Brougham. (who
had then to argue on that side), as that. of a Ja-
panese.
Mr. &roe GRA:wt.—ls net a marriage,' indisso.
liable here, indissoluble all the world over ?
Mr. BROUGHAM contended, that it wet not Indis.
soluble here ; caul that the Defendant had acquired
the status o singleness IA Stotlan.a• lie quoted Calvin's case, 7 ltep: to prove that, degrees from a
King to a knight were universally'
:recognised; of
whatever country.
Lord Etta moo aoubn.,—. A. King Of Idadagasear,. or.
Al4lOllOOO, for instant,: ? lam afraid the authority
will not much serve vii; but kis iN Cr; book and
von are net answerable for it.
-Mr. BROUGHAM Ropeedcd3.that the relation,

• •••.4••••• t 4

! ,
li 1 1 )
1 ' ,
11
, 1.,..
i"
1,1
,
I