The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

44S HOUSE OF COMMONS—TuzepAy. SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND IN IRELAND. Mr. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the sale and transfer of land in Ireland. As the act establishing the Encumbered Estates Court would expire in two or three months, it was necessary, lie observed, to consider and decide what was to be done in this matter and with the tribunal itaelf. The first question was whether a mere Con tinuance bill should be introduced, or whether the Government, with the materials before it, should endeavour to deal with the whole subject, and sub mit a plan comprehensive in its operation. They had adopted the latter course, and the bill proposed to extend the principle of giving a parliamentary indefeasible title to tiered as well as encum bered estates, and to empower the conit constituted by the bill to be permanent, and to be called the Landed Estates Court, to exercise certain functions now appertaining to the Court of Chancery. Mr. J. FrrzoERALD approved the principle of the bill, but refrained from giving any opinion upon the mode of carrying it ir.to operation until he saw the whole measure. Sir E. PERRY thought the principles enunciated by Mr. Whiteside sound and practicable. Mr. DEASY likewise considered the bill as a,very great improvement of the law of Ireland. Suggestions were offered by Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Matins, and Mr. De Vere, which were replied to by Mr. Wa lpole and Mr. Whiteside, and leave was given to introduce the bill. THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES. Mr. GLADSTONE moved an address to her Majesty, to submit to her Majesty that this house, bearing in mind the obligations imposed by the Treaty of Paris so far as they affect the Danubian principalities, has observed with satisfaction the general tenor and spirit of the declaration recorded by her Majesty's Chief Plenipotentiary at the Conferences of 1856 concerning the future organization of those terri tories ; and to convey to her Mejesty the earnest hope of this house that, in the further prosecution of this important subject, just weight may be given to those wishes of the people of Wallachia and Mol davia which, through their representatives elected in conformity with the treaty, they have recently ex pressed. First among the reasons in support of the motion he placed the wish and ardent desire of almost the entire population of the Principalities for this union, which had been sanctioned by the suze rain power in 1834 in a public and authoritative document. There were, he remarked, but three Powers represented at Paris to whose opinion upon this question any great moral weight was attached— namely, France, England, and Sardinia, whose judg • ment was sure to carry with it the mass of European opinion —and a solemn pledge was given by their plenipotentiaries, afterwards embodied in the Treaty of Paris, that the qne.stion should be referred to the judgment of the people of the Principalities. Mr. Gladstone then adverted to the result of the appeals by the Divans ad hoc to the people of Moldavia and Wallachia, who were, he said, almost unanimous in favour of the union, and he ridiculed the idea of leaving the question to be decided afterwards by five or six commissioners. He admitted that the people had expressed a desire fur something more than the union. Four of the additional points were, in his opinion, reasonable ; the fifth was that the Princi palities might be united, not under a prince or chief taken from one of the native families, but from some foreign family. If there was anything ob jectionable in this demand, the pledge solemnly given ought not on that account to be abandoned, and the paramount objet of the Roumanian people, which was the best possible measure for their wel fare, should not be disappointed for purposes that were to subserve views extraneous to their interests. If the union did not take place, the Principalities would be a constant source of anxiety to European policy; if they were united, between Russia and Turkey would be interposed a living barrier; and he denied that the union would have the slightest effect • injurious to the Ottoman empire, which bad not, and never possessed, the sovereignty of the Principalities. Mr. S. FITZGERALD, atter adverting to the diffi catty he encountered in dealing with a subject to which he feared many members had not given suffi cient attention, and iu replying to a speech which enlisted the sympathy of a popular assembly, argued that the motion was utterly unprecedented, and cal culated to lead to serious consequences. At the time when this question was about to be decided by the Conferences at Paris a vote in favour of the motion would be considered as an instruction of the House of Commons to the assembled representatives of continental Europe. The object of the Treaty of Paris was to maintain the territorial integrity of the Turkish empire. Everything that impaired that integrity was regarded as a matter that affected Europe. The effect of the motion was to dismember the Turkish empire; the population of the Princi• palities declared that the union not under a foreign prince was the last thing they desired ; that it would not diminish, but aggravate, the evils under which nnenctiml THE PRESS, MAY 8, 1858 they suffered. The effect of the union of the Princi palities under a foreign prince would render them practically independent of the Porte, and this was totally incompatible with the Treaty of Paris and with the very object for which we went to war with Russia. He hoped the house would not assent to a motion which was, he said, repugnant to our solemn obligations, which was not for the interest of the people of the Principalities, and which would tend to the dismemberment of the Turkish empire. Mr. ROEBUCK said it appeared to him that an opportunity was offered which would never recur. The house had been told that it must not interfere, but be held that it was the duty of the house to tell those who were to speak in the name of England at Paris what they were to say, what principles they were to maintain, and to declare to the assembled people of Europe that we were about to support a free people, sprung from a peculiar source—the old Roman empire. They were never united by conquest to the Turkish empire, but by independent contract, and he contended that they had a claim upon the people of England, and a right to have the wishes acceded to which they had expressed by their Divans. Lord PALMERSTON observed that the real question at issue, which had been a good deal lost sight of, was that stated by Mr. Fitzgerald, whether we should take a course that would infallibly be the first step to separate the Principalities from the Turkish empire, and thereby to dismember it. If these Principalities were not a part of the Ottoman empire, how, be asked, came Mr. Gladstone to be a party to a war when they were invaded by Russia ? He did not think that the nations of Europe would have taken up arms to protect the Principalities from Russian aggression had their invasion not been regarded as an encroachment upon Turkey. From the time when they ceased to be a part of the Roman empire, with a short interval, these Principalities had always been two separate States. Their connection with Turkey was not a state of oppression ; what they suffered arose from foreign aggression and occupa tion. The Treaty of Paris made no engagement on the subject of the union ; it came to no decision upon that point; the question under the treaty was not a question of union, but of internal organization. The treaty had been fulfilled ; it required that Divans should be called, and they had been called ; but a union under a foreign prince would lead to a subver sion of Turkish authority over those provinces. A foreign prince meant a prince of a Russian family, or of a family under Russian protection who would be a vassal of Russia. This would be the first step to a separation, and be thought the Moldavian and Wa lachian people took a shortsighted view of their own interest in desiring it. Ho hoped the house would not be led away by the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone to accede to a motion that would be adverse to the fundamental policy of this country and to its engage ments, and, while it would not be for the benefit of the people of the Principalities, would probably end in European dissensions, if not in war. Lord J. RussELl. considered that this was a ques tion in which the good faith of England was con cerned, and he asked whether this was a matter to which the house ought to be indifferent. Mr. Glad stone, he observed, did not propose to say what course other powers should take at the Conference, but to express the opinion of the House of Corn• mons as to what ought to be the language of the English Plenipotentiary. He agreed with Mr. Fitz gerald that we ought not to set up any power iu the Principalities that would be a rival to the power of the Sultan, or that would indirectly tend to impair the integrity and independence of Turkey. Con demning very strongly the coarse which had been taken in this matter under the Treaty of Paris as most unwise and irritating, he regarded it as pro• moting the views of Russia. The only way of getting out of the dilemma, in his opinion, was the course proposed by Mr. Gladstone. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it ap peared to him that if tbo house adopted the motion it would find itself in a dilemma, instead of escaping from one. At that moment there was a perfect identity of interests, 'news, and policy between the Government of her Majesty and that of France ; is a few days the representatives of the two Govern ments would be prepared to recommend and enforce this policy, and it would not facilitate their en deavours for the House of Commons to carry an address like this to the Crown, which might have a serious influence on the course of events. He read the articles of the treaty defining the engagements of this country, which he declared ought to be kept, not only in letter but in spirit, the object being to obtain for the Danubian provinces goodlgovernment and self-government, and we could, he believed, on taiu this with the cordial co-operation of the French Government. But if any other course were taken, the result might be confusion and armed interven tion, and either the total neglect of those whose interests we were bound to regard, or a European war, the term and extent of which no person could calculate. On the ground of high policy be depre cated the adoption of the motion. At this moment it was impossible for the house to take a step that would be more embarrassi ng to t h e conduct of th e Government, and which would b e o f a more Painful character. After a reply from Mr. GLADSTONE, the house divided, when the motion was negatived by 292 to 114. THE " CAGL/ARL" In reply to a question by Mr. KING LAKE, Mr. S. FITZGERALD said the explanations of Lord Malmesbury on the subject of the Cagliari and her crew had been satisfactory to the Government of Sardinia, and that Count Cavour had signified his intention to act entirely in accordance with the spirit of the protocol of Paris. The house adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WxnszsDAT. MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. On the order for the second reading of this bill, moved by Lord BURY, Mr. HOPE moved to defer the reading f or s i x months. The question, he observed, was of imp or . tance to every class, whose social position is affected, especially if this alteration of the marriage law ran counter, as he contended it did, not only to revealed but to natural religion. If the measure was not right—if it was not imperatively demanded—it was grievously wrong. The epathy of the great 111651 of the people upon this subject showed that there wa, no real grievance calling far redress ; the whol e thing, he said, bad been notoriously got up by a few interested persons. After a scrutiny of the organiza• tints employed for the object of the bill, he entered upon what, he observed, was the cardinal question, whether marriage with a deceased wife's sister was or was not lawful in the sight of God. This ques tion he resolved in the negative, after a minute exa mination of texts and authorities, including the verse in Leviticus, the authorized transiation of which be impugned; but, whether correct or not, he maintained that these marriages were expressly pro hibited by the Divine law. He wound up a very long argument by an exposition of the social evils, the jealousies, dhe household discords, and the im moralities which would, in his opinion, be the certain fruits of thus legislating, he said, for a few selfish persons. Mr. BUXTON, on the other hand, deduced from social considerations an argument in favour of these marriages, which, be contended, were not forbidden, and were not proved to be morally wrong. Mr. Comina, in reply to Mr. Hope, contended that a prohibition of marriage should be plain, clear, and decided by the laws of God, by the law of nature, or by some overwhelming social evils. The sole [religions argument against the marriages in question was rounded upon the text in Leviticus ; but this authority was less relied on than formerly, and the argument itself was abandoned when Lord Lynd burst's Act was passed. Even if the question was doubtful, it should be left to the conscience of indi viduals. The alleged social evils of legalizing these marriages were, in his estimation, of a visionary character, while the evils of maintaining the present law were great and certain. Mr. BAINES li kewise supported the bill, knowing , he said, many cases illustrating the hardship and injustice of the present law. As to the theological argument, applying his own plain ucderstanding to it, he could not discover any Divine prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister; and in nearly every Christian State these marriages were per mitted, either by dispensation or otherwise. If so. and if no overwhelming considerations forbade them, it was tyrannical to uphold a law which, in conjuoc tion with the Law of Settlement, bore with peculiar severity upon the poorer classes. Mr. DRUMMOND considered that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, which, he said, was a gross violation of God s . law, bad brought this question into its present po m • Lion ; and although he meant to vote against the bill, he admitted that the state of things was such that it was impossible to allow it to remain. Upon the theological question, it was not disputed, he said, that the universal doctrine of the Church up to the time of Pope Alexander Borgia was that these marriages were contrary to the law of God, and he had no doubt that, according to the fair interpreta tion of the Scriptures, they were incestuous Sir G. Lrivis said he should give his cordial vote in favour of the bill. Up to to 1835 these marriages ware voidable, not void, and practically many such marriages were contracted and remained valid. Lord Lydharst's Act rendered these marriages void in future, but recognized the validity of those already contracted ; and if the bench of Bishops had con sidered them contrary to tho law of God, they won" have remonstrated against such legislation. Tiio change in the doctrine of the Church upon this question had been made by the Protestant Re formers, and it was the Fractice of all Christendom. except this country, to allow the validity of these marriages. Looking to the history of the law, to tb' practice of foreign countries, and to the unwilling- e It e L. r B 1 i• a 1 1 •