, 1879-05-23

9Th inst. Tho following resolution waA
adopted by n voto Of 1OG to G5:
Tl,at In tho opinion OF this House The action OF
breach Of promise OF marriage oapht to 10 abol.
,shost. except in whcrs actual pocunfnry loBs
has bccn Incurred by rraann OF The pronllse, tho
damages being limited to such pccun!aEy 1uss."
Mr.. HERsoaELL, tho mover of tho reso1a-
tion, ,nnds very learned and witty apoooh
III Its boLalf Tho country" ho saia,
"louriBhad for many eeuturius in n por-
foctly satisfactory condition without any
person thinking Of bringing an notion Of
this description" It was not established
until two centuries ngo TINT snch M notion
lay, nlthongh as far buck as tho roign Of
Queen EL1zAni:Tn M action somewhat like
that for broach Of promise was brought by
man, who alleged TINT tho woman Ind given
him 1attoring wortls equal to n promise Of
marriage. But tho first action foundod
on tho allegation Of q promise Of mar-
riago was brought IN tho roign Of CuAnLEs l.
The speakor roviowod tho lnwa of other
countries touching this subject. The italian
and Austrian laws ito not regard Il mutual
promiso of future marriage ns producing my
legal obligation to contract It. Tho Dutch
law is substantially tho same. Iii Germany,
wl.ero tho engagement Is Of more foru,nl
charnctor than in most other countries, being
MI official act boforo public n,lthoritloH, ono-
fifth Of the dowor may bo claimed, If ono Of
tho parties refuses without just causo. The
French Inv, ia IN harmony with TINT pro-
posed for England, with tho exception that
an action lios whom abduction Inns boon no.
compIIahosl under promise Of marriage Mr..
1IEnscur11 was unwilling to admit sucll al
exception in tho English Inv, for tho ronson
that it would ntfortl relief to woman whose
virtue had failed, whslo it wouId deny
nny ron,ody to one whose virtuo Ind 70.
mainel unshnken. Mr. IEnacHE1LH argu-
mont at this point WIS, 1t must bo admitted,
weak. For tho relief claimed by tic woman
whose virtue has failetl il for tho gront
wrong inflicted upon her uudor promise of
marriage; md this wrong tho other Inns not
suffered. It might DO, lowover, that aotious
for abduction could DO properly separated
altogether from actions for broac, Of prom
ise Of marriage.
Mr. IIEasonE1L's arguments in favor of
abolisl,ing tho old assiou wore that tho
remedy Of tho law was Seldom sought by
deserving women who Ind boon disappointed
Of u promised marriage; that 1t was often
sought by ,sndcserving women, and used for
purposes Of Maohnail; that 1t WAS no. tho
purpose Of tlio Inv to enforco marriage whom
either Of tho pnrt'os WAS unwilling. Marriage
differs from, other coutr4ots, IN that the uu-
willing fultillmcnt OF It must practically DO
no fulflllment ut all. On tbs other hand,
Mr. HEnsouKLn this year hal alnon.lod tho
resolution, as submitted by lin IN two pre-
Yiohs years, by excepting caaas in which
aotunl pocnniary loss has boon incurred by
roason Of tho promise.
Alr. HEusouE11. cito<l number Of instances
Of hardssips produool by actions Of this do.
suription, aud OF blackmail accomplished by
Threats Of II. Tho only ground OIL which tho
action could DO supported, 10 said, was that
Marriage was profession IN which, women
gainod tacir livelihood by the performance o.
their social aud domestic virtues" hfr.
lIERsonEnn was ably supported by number
Of members mud opposed by others, including
among tho latter tho Solicitor General. Tho
diyision was, aa above stated, 10l for tho
resolution aud Us against 1t; majority for tho
! resolution, II.
Tho comments OF the leading London
newspapers are, IT anything, moro entertain
ing than The report OF the tlebato itself. The
7imes opposes the resolution ouly because 1t
is not broad enough. Tho exception, 1t aays,
destroys the intended oTsot Of tho whole,
II pecuuiary loss produced BY breaches OF
II. T. T.