The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-20
BREACH OF PROMISE CASES.
THE BRITISH COMMONS YOTING FOR 4
CHANGE IN THE Law.
Merriment In the House, IntermiNed with
some Rhyme aud some Reason The Most
Highly EntertnInIng Debate Of the season.

fftap he LINTON Telegraph
In the House Of Commons on May 6 Mr..
Hcrschell moved;
That m the opinion Of this House the action breach
Of rr,ni,c of marriage ought ir abolished eNccntin
where actual recuuiary loss has been incurred by
pe ,amiaTy io..
The action. he said. was every day scandalous-
ly abused. Many Of the actions werobrougnt
merely for the purpose OF eNtortion and every
day the proceeding was used as a means of
levying blackmal lie mentioned two cases.
out OF a great number. to Illustrate what he
said. Two or three years ago m action was
brought against clergyman G5 years " nge by
n young woman of IS. lIuughterl The de-
PENDANT WIS afflicted with an impcdiment in his
speech and an irretrcssihlc habit " yuwning.
which impressed the jury un'nvorahly. The
only other thing peculiar about the clergyman
WAS that he had great love for medicine, aud
counsel computed that in the course OF his life
he had taken $1,000 pills, lIhughtcrl Tho re-
suit was n verdict for tho plaintiff. damages
6150; uaYRiterl At lhe next sitting Of !he
plaintiff WIS q oman ~ abandoned character.
and that she had threatened two other persons
with similar actions, eNtorilng ESQ from
one Of them There was no sort Of answer.
and the case was hot again heard Of Hear.
Then there was an action by a man who, had
nc gone TO trial would have received a farth ing
damages but the woman felt the greatest aver
sion to having her letters read in court. and she
paid Il 900 and costs to man whosr only mo-
tive WIS ayaricp. Hear. hearl Every day ac-
wrong
and obtain compensation for no real injury.
even though there might have been some sort
OF promise OF marriage. II was impossible for
n man to get justice in n case ~ this kind. II
he suggested that the woman was anything but
an angel. or that some reason existed to make
him unwillinl, to carry ont his promise he was
subjected 10 torrents Of abuse. and in the end
left court with no very comfortable feeling.
though every word NJ his case might be true.
The action could not justify itself. An aurac-
tive woman who had been badly used 10y a man
got heavy damages. while one who was unat-
tracuvc. and who had been treated 10y the innn
In the most honest fashion. got very small dam
ages. although in not getting such a husband
she sustained by far the greater loss, The con-
tract, being unlike any other. should be dealt
with differently from others. and It was brttor
for both parties that II either desired To DE free
before IL became ndissouble that tlpsi re should
not be forbidden. Only ono petition. signed by
nine persons, had been presented against his
proposal. and II treated women as living Il life
which was a sort Of competitive examination
for matrimOny assuming that when they got a
promise. which was like passing an examine
ton. they should get the appointment Laugh
He desired that promise Of marriage should
no longer be treated on the same footing ns any
other contract: hut II. on the faith of promise.
woman incurred expense and loss. IL WAS only
right TINT she should be recOuued There might
be- cases of real hardship. hut they were eX-
tr"mely few and entirely exceptional. and IL
seemed to him impossible to legislnte for them.
II his proposal were adopted, the law oi Eng
land would he brought into harmony with that
Of almost every other European State. In
France exception was made in cases whore SCI
durtiOn resulted. ana wis tho immediate con-
sequcnce OF u promise; but he did not think Il
logical or consistent 10 afford relief 10 women
whose virtue had failed them. while 1t was de-
MED 10 those whose virtue had been moro ro-
bust lHearl Al the same time he considered
the law OF seduction highly unsatisfactory; II
was barharous. ridiculous. and urgently needed
alteration. Some people feared THAT If the
change which he advocated were brought about
great many cases OF seduction with a promise
81 marriage would occur but h" doubted It
very much. for II women knew that the rrom-
Use was not certain ot iulnlment they would
probably take more care OF their virtue than
ihey did at present. He m CHIT be told that an
alteration OF the law would induce brothers to
take the law into their own hands. and infict a
sound thrashing upon the men who had
wronRed their sisters hut he had no faith in
the valiant brothers whose arms We're now re-
strained by the knowledge that an action for
preach OF promise Of marriage could be- brought
.Hear.l He believed that the more this pro-
posed reform was weighed and considered the
more it would commend itself 20 the common
tense and judgment Of the people. and that. II II
were passed 1t would elevate mons views re-
specting the marriage bond, take away much
that was evil and add TO the we-being OF the
community lCheersI
OF the honorable member went too Tar. Many
ladies suffered injury from hrench Of promise
which could not be Judged by the standard Of
pecuniary loss. A young lady during her en-
Ragement was under considerable disadyan-
tages. She WAS a wall flower. 30 To- speak.
II.aughter1 She dare not waltz renewed
laughter. and she thus was deprived of many
chances which she would have had but tor that
engagement. lHenr, hear. He admitted that
.
but upon the whole. II n ted on men as a deter
rent 10 prevent them trtiing with the feelings
Of women e. they n'igit I,nerYlS" be tempted
life thing apart. tl- womAns sole eNist"nre.
and he, contend"d that they ought To bear in
mind the fact that marriage was the only life
open 10 most women. and 10 protect them A.
cordingly. Hear. hrarl HIS honorable friend,
however would simply tell them a. take care Of
themselves. and. like Bathazar. said 10 them
SIGH nu more Ladies'. sigh more,
Men were d"criNerseYrr,
70 one, one iains ' constant 5's ant ne never, ',ie''
uaughterl He moved rs an amendment to
Mr.. Herschrll's motion. that the injury sus-
tained by breach Of prom Sc Of marriage cannot
b. weighed by the standard OF pecuniury loss
alone. and that the limitation OF the action in
be very undesirable" Hear hear.l
Mr.. VI. Lloyd seconded the amendment. Mo-
body was bound 10 marry unless he liked
llaughterl-hut he must compensate the person
10 whom he made the promise. He may change
his mind but he must pay for it.
Mr. FORSYTH held that this action should b,
maintained in order tina, women might have
an opportunity OF vlndienting their chara'trrs
feelings and n broken heart.
Mr.. Rodwell said the only ground on which
marriage could be satisfactorily founded wa'
on reciprocity OF Affection and the moment thai
affection ceased the engagement should ter
inmate. in the interest Of both. These cases
were usually brought for purposes OF extortioI
Mr.. Cole said his experience Of these case,
WAS that they were not brought for the purpose
girls family in order 10 vindicate her character
aud 10 expose the hcnrtless conduct ~ the man
1t was n mean proposal 10 say that "A woman
should get damage only whore She had met
pecuniary loss. Very often actions were
brought 20 show that the woman had no stail
on her character. II n man thought he coult
escape he would possibly become rover
lLRughterl
Mr.. Stayeley Hill held that where there was
breach of contract there ought to be damages OF
somAequivaient form of punishment.
MI Granthnm admitted that breach OF prom
iso actions were sometimes brought for the pur
pOsr Of eNtOrtlon. but considered that on ia,
VII ole they had conduccd 10 the public good.
The SOlicltOr-General maintained that tn,
resolution involved AN invasion 81 the ordinary
principles Of Jurisprudence. Besides being de
fensible on its own merits. a remedy which hat
existed ever since the Roman Inv ought not I,
be lightly got rid Of He regarded with appre
hension suggestions such m tho-o Of the hon
orabe member for Durham. Theoretically
the right Of action belonged To- men ~ well az
women. but reully il existed for the projection
OF the latter and II the motion Of the honorable
member were to b. carried. II would have th
effect Of leaving r"cogn1 ed wrong without
remedy. or with only such remedy rs wOul'
be little more than AN insult lCheers.l
Sir II. James thought II wr1Lg Ia maintain
the action Tor breach Of promise Of marriag
by way of punishment for man who hOneatl
withdrew from an engagement into which Ia
had too hastily entered. lCheers.l
Col MuhiuS considered TINT the only pnrgOu