BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Volume 2, Issue 95, 26 July 1879, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

May (i.—Mr Hcrsohell moved a resolution affirming the action for breath of promise of rutirriogo ought to be abolished except in cases were actual pecuniary loss. He naked the House to agree to the resolution on the ground that experience showed that such actions were evil in their tendency and mischievous in .their results. Having stated cases to show the scandalous manner in which the action was used as a means of levying black mail, he insisted that a contract to many was unlike any other, and that when damages were given they were generally inconsistent, because the young and attractive woman, who might easily make another engagement, got the heaviest damages, while an older woman without good looks got very little. He urged that it was for the welfare of society that people who might have COD' tracted to marry each other, and subsequently desired to revoke the contract, should bo allowed to do so. lie denied that marriage was the " profession of every woman," and he stigmatised the assertion as degrading and untrue, and he insisted that to force on a distasteful engagement was an act of supremo folly. Moreover, Kngiand was almost the only country in Europe in which actions for luoach of promise were allowable. Sir J. Baldly Wilinot contended, on -he other hand, that the Injury sustained by breacliof promise could not lie weighed by the standard of pecuniary loss alone, ,i,id that the limitation of the action in the manner proposed by the Herseholl would be undesirable. Ho moved an amendment to that effect, which was seconded by Mr. M. Llovd; who urged that no case had been made out for changing a law that hid been in existence fur 2 X) years.

Mr. Ftmjrth urgod that disappointed

MM «en- entitled to | WipilllMUlmi i for «OWld«d feelings and broken hcaits. ;

Mr. Bod**l] differed, und imiiimul hi* regret that Mr. Hencbell bad not brought in a 11:11 instead of an abstract iwultttton.

Mr. Coie denied that these actions wen. brought for mercenary motives, and taunted Mr. Ibischell with having delayed to bring forward his motion until he had planed himself beyond the leach of law that gave damages for breach of promise.

Mr. S. Hill, arguing freiu the legal as* poet of thejuuestioii, contended that in many cases uo redress could be Cot except' by action.

Mr. Grantham thought that on tin whole it was for tho good that the law should not be altered.

Tho Solicitor General opposed the motion, insisting that it involved an invasion of tho ordinary principles of jurisprudence.

Sir H. James supported the motion, on ?ho ground that actions for bleach of promise were the only actions in which damages were allowed to hi! recovered for wounded feelings, and they really punished a man for misery. Colonel Makin.s also supported, the motion, and the House divided :—Fortlio motion, 100; again,i, 03; majority,+l. The motion was accordingly agreed to,