Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-04-07
MARRIAGE LAWS OF ENGLAND.
A WARNING To t.,n,rs

/
! The New York Commercial notices a recon.
marriage at Macao, between an English gentleman
ana an American lady, and says that if the clergy
man WHO performed the ceremony, is an American
missionary as is probably the case there is donbs
whether the marriage will be recognized as valid
In England; whether The issue of the marriage
VIII he accounted legitimate, and allowed to in.
herit their fathers property. 1t will be perceived
that TINS is a very serious contingency for Ameri-
can ladies who marry Englishmon to contemplate.
"in one Ct the London papers received by US
last week, we found the report of trial for crimi-
iai conversations; the plaintiff was an English
gentlemen, but long resident and well known
III New ork. Having occasion 10 leave the u
nited States tor time, he sent his wife to Eng.
land, to live under the protection of his familyS
! On his return. after an absence OF nearly a. wear
/ he found letters awaiting him here GIVING the
painful Information that his wife had dishonored.
him; he proceeded Immediately TO England, took.
his children from her, and commenced the action
above referred TO against the scducer'' ,-;
| The defendants counsel set up the plea that the
iady was not actually the plaintiff S wife, and at
The trial II appeared that the marriage cerenrony
had been performed III foreign country by an A.
morlcan missionary. There was no preience of
coHuSinu, or that the marriage was not intended
and believed to be valid the manner Of its solcu@
niZaticn was the only ground relied on. a.
The Judge reserved the question; intimatinr
strong doubts whether the marriage could indeed
be recognized. +.
We observe, moreover, a recent decision the
t"uit oi Queens Bench in Ireland, against the
validity oil marriages in ;lat part of the United
Nih3Iom between Prcsbyterians and Episcopa!is
ans, so!emhlzed by Presbyterian cleIgymen' A
| decision which has thrown doubt and consterna.
iiCn Into hundreds, prehaps thousands, OF respec.
! table families.
! we may add, however, in connection with this
subJ'ct, That on recent occasion in the House of
| tomihCns, Mr.. O'CCnnei alluded to the decision
ABOVE ECiIced and said that it had an evident ten.
uchcy 10 unhingc society. and TO produce effects
| OF the ncst immoral character. Ii was caltulaa
ted TO induce individuals who came within tl,.
scope OF hat decision TO believe that they had a
right to leave their wives and families and to mar
~ again. lie wished, therefore, TO know wheth.
or II was The Intention of her Maiesty's govern
meht to introduce bill for the purpose of leoal-
Zlng such marriages had already taken place
aud Tor the purpose Of settling this question in f,-
/ tere!
Sir X. Peel stated in answer to the question N
HE Right Hon. the Lord Mayor Of Dublin. tina,
the subject TO which he referred had been nnde
Tue consideration Of her Majesty's government fol
souic tine and that il was their Intention To in.
tFoduce bill Tor establishing the validity Of such
marriages without delay, so as to meet those ca.
ses Which Le so much regretted to have occurred
where persons who for years had considered them.
selves III iull exercise Of legitimate rights, sud
denly found that they were liable to be deprived
OF thenf III consequence Of certain technical forms
Of lazy.