Mr. Herschell on Tuesday carried a resolution stating that t „ in
the opinion of the House of Commons, "the action of breach_ of promise of marriage ought to be abolished, except in cases where actual pecuniary loss has been incurred by reason of the promise, the damages being limited to such pecuniary loss," by an unexpected majority. No less than 106 Members voted for the resolution, and only 65 against it. As the total is less. than a third of the whole House, as Government has no time to. prepare a Bill, and as the Law Lords believe that the action is, on the whole, needful, it is not likely that the resolution will be embodied in law just yet. The old ten-pounders may, how- ever, see in Mr. Herschell's victory a measure of the complete- ness of their own effacement. The law was one for the protec- tion of their daughters. The rich do not want it, and the poor do not use it ; but it is still necessary, as we have contended. elsewhere, for the protection of the respectable vulgar. They would have defended it under the old suffrage, but under the new,
they are as powerless as so many flies. Velvet-coat and fustian are alike worthy of attention, but for seamy black cloth there is nothing but disregard. It is just the same in politics. The landlord may govern his county, and the artisan may govern his borough, but the farmer will not be allowed oven to expend his own rates.
Previous page
