that if these doctrines could be supported, the House would have nothing to debate upon. But the question was, not whether man should put asunder those whom God had joined, but whether God had joined those who joined themselves fraudulently, and contrary to the laws of their country. Now, unless he had mistaken the whole tenor of the Old and New Testament, there was nothing contained in the scriptures, which could be taken to prevent national societies from prescribing the forms by which marriages should be solemnized. If it were otherwise, there was not a nation on earth, since the Christian era, which had not concurred in a most profane praetice. Much had been said of the tenderness, with which the interests of females should be regarded in the bill before the House. He had no sort of objection to doing so, but he wished that some care should be extended also to the males. It happened to him, in the discharge of his judicial functions, to see frequent instances of the necessity of protecting the latter. In one of recent occurrence, the daughter of a bricklayer, a woman 32 years of age, with several illegitimate children, had prevailed upon a youth of 17, of high family and rank, to marry her.

Lord Liverpool stated, that he objected to the principle of the clause altogether, even if its object were right; because there were two ways of accomplishing itthe first by nullity, and the other by voidability, both of which principles were of directly opposite natures; and nullity, though sufficiently objectionable, was less so in principle than voidability. It was easy to see, how the present clause had originated. The House

had both these difficulties before them; they resorted to this clause by way of compromise; and, as usually happened, the compromise occasioned more of real difficulty than either alternative. If de facto a marriage did take place, and the parties coming to the altar made the vows there tendered to them falsely and knowingly, the mar riage might be made null and void. But the most preposterous part of the proposed law was, that if you asked the parties one month afterwards, whether they were married, they would be compelled to answer, "We don't know, for the validity of our marriage depends upon the act of a third party, over whose proceedings we have no control." It was inconceivable, how such a state of things could be compatible with the principles of the law. He knew that in some cases there must be a nullity, but that there should be a voidability was most objectionable. Even if it were advisable that the marriages of minors should be dissoluble, it should be effected by means of making them null and void-not voidable. Another objection was -that the clause would not be sufficient to effect the object at which it aimed: for what was the clause worth, if marriages in Scotland, on the continent, and by bans, were left free from its operation? The learned lord, had said, very truly, that there were cases of female as well as of male seduction, but it became their lordships to consider chiefly that which was most usual, and he would venture to say, that, in nineteen cases out of twenty, the female was the seduced party. The woman, who after the marriage had been completed, should be turned adrift, had nothing before her but dis

grace, misery, and ruin. The man, if by the persuasion of his friends, or from any other cause, he should be induced to give up her whom he had engaged to protect, would, during the whole of his life, be subject to feelings of no enviable description. However much improvident marriages were to be deprecated, there was no mending the matter by dissolving them. In the majority of cases it would be more tender and humane to provide, that the parent or guardian should have no choice, than that he should have one; not knowing the feelings of the parties, and not perhaps being capable of forming a correct notion of what his duty might call for. It was a responsibility which, in his own case, he should regret to be under.

The clause was supported by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, lord Sidmouth, and lord Stowell. Formerly, said lord Stowell, it was assumed, in all cases, that the consent of parentsor guardians had been granted to those about to enter into matrimony, although, in point of fact, little more was deemed necessary than the consent of the two parties themselves. In this state the matter continued for a long series of years, and that rule survived the Reformation. But soon after, the attention of the reformers was called to the propriety of strengthening the parental authority. The doctrine was then expressly promulgated, that where marriages were contracted without the consent of parents, they should be totally null and void; and thus the law remained till the time of lord Hardwicke, when the disturbances in society, from the want of an efficient marriage law, induced him to turn his serious attention to

the subject. His act was superseded by that which had been passed last year, and, in consequence of the inconveniences experienced under the latter measure, it became necessary to reconsider the subject. The committee, in turning their attention to it, found there were only four possible ways, in which the authority of the parent could be regarded;-namely, nullity, voidability, a preventive measure, or the doing of that which was extremely objectionable, throwing the reins at once on the neck of youth, at a period of life when passion always outran prudence. Nullity, he would say, in point of principle, appeared to him, up to the present moment, to be the proper course. But the general opinion was, that nullity was a monster, against which every rational man ought to take alarm; and therefore it was abandoned. Another mode had been suggested by a noble and learned personthat of a remedy by a preventive measure. If he thought a preventive measure could succeed, he should consider that to be a very advisable course; but, on principle, he knew that it could not succeed. The experiment had been tried, and it had totally failed. The number of marriages had so decreased under that preventive system, that the demoralization of the country was likely to ensue. The last and only remaining principle, was a medium between the entire dereliction of parental authority on the one side, and entire voidability on the other. Though the committee were by no means insensible to the objections which existed against the principle of limited voidability, they thought it was one which ought to be submitted to the con

sideration of parliament in preference to leaving youth altogether unprotected and unrestrained: and on this ground, they proposed the clause now under discussion, involving, as it did, a principle, which, they were well aware, might be open to much reasonable objection, but which they did conceive to be the best, seeing that nullity was sure of rejection, and hat preventive measures were, generally speaking, inapplicable. It had been said, that the object of this clause might be so evaded as to render the provision nugatory; and that, therefore, their lordships ought not to adopt it. It could not be otherwise in the nature of things; and, if this common liability were to be taken as ground of valid objection, it would be ridiculous for their lordships to attempt to legislate at all in the matter. They might spare themselves the anxiety of devising remedies, if every remedy proposed were to be rejected, because it was possible that contrivances might be framed which should evade its operation. It had been argued, that this clause would operate principally for the benefit of the male part of our population, and would bear hard upon the female portion of the community; and their lordships had been told that the cases, against the recurrence of which they were called upon to provide, were much more numerous on the female side than on the male. Now he confessed, that his own professional experience had by no means led him to such a conclusion. As far as that experience went, it had rather been his fate to see the misery of families occasioned by sons (the hopes of those families), who had ruined themselves, and had blasted those

hopes by fatal marriages, which had overwhelmed themselves in disgrace and shame, and their connexions in the bitterest sorrow. He contended, therefore, that disgraceful marriages happened much oftener among our young male, than among our female population. And this was very natural. The education of young women was much more correct and guarded than that of young men. The former were, for a considerable portion of their lives, under the vigilant inspection and superintendence of their parents or their families; and, added to these restraints, it was to be remembered, the natural delicacy of their sex scarcely permitted them to be exposed to the same sort of dangers as young men were at that period of existence. Young men were sooner, and more frequently, and for a longer time, removed from parental inspection; they were sent to school earlier in life, and from thence were transferred to public schools, to colleges, and afterwards to great cities. There they could not so generally or so entirely be under the eye of their parents, but, left to themselves, pursued their own course and followed their own counsels. They were neither so much under parental superintendence, nor had so much the benefit of wiser counsels as their sisters had; and it was natural, therefore, that, yielding to their inclinations, they should more commonly form early attachments, and that, if they entertained such attachments, they should more frequently gratify them by improvident marriages.

Lord Redesdale and lord Sidmouth took the same view of the question: but in spite of the authority and wisdom of those who were best qualified to form a cor

reet opinion upon the subject, the clause was rejected by 28 not contents against 22 contents.

On the 4th of June Mr. J. Williams moved for an inquiry into the arrear of business in the court of chancery, and the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords and the causes thereof. The substance of the speech, which he made in support of this motion, consisted of statements, inaccurate in point of fact, with respect to the expense and duration of five or six particular suits. He did not attempt to show that the delay and expense, of which he complained, was occasioned by the practice of the Court, and not, as is in most cases really the truth, by the mis-management of the parties themselves, or their solicitors and counsel:* much less did he or his confederates endeavour to point out any specific part or point in the system of proceedings in equity, in which the evil lay, or which might be altered with advantage. General declamation was the weapon with which they assailed the highest of the ordinary tribunals of the country; and as the greater part of the pub lic knew as little of the subject as Mr. Williams and Mr. Denman, their oracular assertions were promulgated with all the confidence of ignorance. Mr. Denman's speech, however, possessed one singularity-the boldness with which he impeached the soundness of the decisions of the lord chancellor. He was very sure, that lord Eldon ought to have issued a commission of lunacy against lord Portsmouth in 1814, and that his

All his examples were furnished by one solicitor, of whose practice great complaints were constantly making in

the court.

determinations in the question of literary property were erroneous. Political hatred and self-conceit, will do wonders: but we confess we never anticipated that they could have deluded even Mr. Denman into a belief of his own fitness for sitting in judgment upon the decisions of a man, who is loved and revered by every individual that has occasion to observe him in the daily administration of justice, and whose patient wisdom, unassuming learning, and simple, disarming gentleness, and courtesy of manner, acting uniformly for more than twenty years, have added to his high office a dignity and influence, the value of which will not be appreciated till we have to mourn over its loss.

Mr. Brougham, Mr. Abercromby, and Mr. Scarlett supported the motion: the Attorney-general, Mr. W. Courtenay, and Mr. Wetherell opposed it, replying most triumphantly to every thing except the vague assertions and general invective of their adversaries. It was rejected after two nights debate, by 174 to 89.

A committee was appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the state of the appellate jurisdiction. The substance of their report will be found in a subsequent part of this volume [page 63*]. It produced two results. The one was an act for a commission to inquire into the forms of process in the courts of law in Scotland; and into the course of appeals from the court of session. The other was the adoption of certain resolutions, the object of which was, to devote five days of the week, instead of three, to hearing appeals; and to compel the attendance of the requisite number of peers.

In pursuance of a report of

a select committee on the recovery of small debts, lord Althorpe brought in a bill upon the subject, with the intention that it should stand over until the following session. The principle of it was, that a barrister of some years standing, as assistant to the sheriff, should at certain times in the year, and at different places in the county, hold county courts, in which sums under 15 might be recovered by a simple bill of plaint. The assessor, it was proposed, should be nominated by the lord-lieutenant, and paid by a fixed salary.

In the last volume an account was given of certain transactions relative to a man of the name of

Borthwick, which were made the subject of imputation against the lord Advocate. Mr. Hope, who, in consequence of the circumstances that followed the debate on that question, had been brought to the bar of the House, was now solicitorgeneral for Scotland: a circumstance, which probably had some influence in producing a renewal of the discussion. A motion made on the 3rd of June by Mr. Abercromby, that the conduct of the lord Advocate towards Borthwick, had been unjust and oppressive, was negatived by a majority of only 6; 102 voting for it, and 96 against it.