The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

TUPDAY,

Mr. Onawroati mnr-ed—Ki.oe-i:tain papers oonnectod
with the establishment of telegraphic oommunioation in
the Vidllollllllollfi, or with India by way of the Red Sea
or Persian Gulf.

-111;-717;t1;;;;;.sttor s short oonverestion, wss avoid

—Mr. WHITESIDE 1110111 d for leave to bring in a Bill to
facilitate the sole and transfer of land in Ireland. As
the Act eatablishing the Encumbered Estates Court
would expire in two or three months IS well neeessary,
he observed, to consider and decide what wee to be
done in this matter and with the tribunal itself, The
Bill proposed to extend the principle of giving a par.
liamentary indefeasible title to unencumbered as well All
encumbered estates, and to empower the court condi.
tuted by the Bill to be permanent, and to be Galled the
Landed Estate' Court, to exordia certain functions
now appertaining to the Court of Chaneery. The En.
cumbered &tabu Court, he said, had poet sines its coin.
meneetnent E 133,000. Under his plan this estimate
would dieappear.
tiuggastions were offered by Mr. Dope, Mr. HORS.
lux, Mr. MALINS,and Mr. De VlNEwhieh were to.
plied to by Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. WHITESIDE, and
leave was given to introduce the Bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved an address to Her biatety, to
submit to Her Majesty that this House hearing mind
the obligations impcoed by the Treaty of Paris so far as
they aired the Danubian Principalities, his observed
with satisfaction the general tenour and spirit of the
declaration recorded by Her Majesty's Chief Plenipo-
tentiarylit the Conferences of LW concerning the future
organisation of those territories; and to convey to Her
Majesty the earned hope of this House that, in the
further prosecution of this important subject, jut
weight may be given to those wialies of the people of
Wallachia and Moldavia, which, though their represen.

atives elected in conformity with the treaty, they have
recently expressed. He urged the great importance of
this question, observing that if the House did not give
its attention to it at the present season it might have to
rue its neglect.
Mr. S. PITXOERALD argued that the motion was
I utterly unprecedented, and calculated to lead to serious
consequences. At a 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 in-
struction of the House of Commons to the assembled
representatives of continental Europe. The object of
the Treaty of Paris was to maintain the territorial in-
tegrity of the Turkish empire. Everything that Un-
paired that integrity was regarded as a matter that af-
fected Europe. The effect of the motion was to dis-
member the Turkish Empire.
Mr. DEASY contended that the Principalities never
therefore,f oruied pa Abe odfist
eemTbuerrekdish
empire,
~mr.
Fwithwiceh ou
ralcdalrdguneodt:
by the union of the Principalities under a foreign
Prince.
Lord R. Cecit, contendod that the House would not
be guilty of any intrusion in expressing its opinion upon
subject coming before the Conference at Paris. The
Porte had no right to allege that the integrity of the
empire would be impaired by the choice of a foreign
Hospodar.
Mr. ROEBUCK 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 is:inquest to the
Turkish empire, but by independent contract, and lie
contended that they had a claim upon the people of
England.
Lord PALMERSTON observed that the real question at
issue was, 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, lie 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 bad 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 connexion with Turkey was not
a state of oppression ; what they suffered arose from
foreign aggression and occupation. He hoped the
House would not accede to a motion that would be ad-
verse to the fundamental policy of this country and to
its engagements, and, while it would not be for the
benefit of the people of the Principalities, would pro-
bably end in European dissensions, if not in way.
Lord J. Humeri!, considered that this was a question
in which the good faith of England was concerned, and
he asked whether this was a matter to which the House
ought to be indifferent. Mr. Gladstone, 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 Commons as to what ought to be the
language of the English Plenipotentiary.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that if
the 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, views,
and policy between the Government of Her Majesty and
that of France; in a few days the representatives of the
two Governments 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 in-
fluence on the course of events. On the ground of high
policy he deprecated the adoption of the motion. At
this moment it was impossible for the House to take a
step that would be more embarrassing to the conduct of
the Government, and which would be of a more painful
character.

After a. reply from Mr. GLADSTONE, the House di-
vided, when the motion was negatived by 292 to 114.

In reply to a question by Mr' KINGLAKE,
Mr. S. FirzontALD 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. _ _ .

Lord RAYNRAM moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the condition and administration of the
metropolitan workhouses, but the motion woe nega-
tived,

The House adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY.

On the order for the second reading of the Marriage
Law Amendment Bill, moved by Lord BURY,
Mr. HOPE moved to defer the reading for six months.
The question, he observed, was of importance to every
class whose social position is affected, especially if this
alteration of the marriage law ran counter, as he con-
tended it did, not only to revealed but to natural religion.
If the measure was not right—if it was not impera-
tively demanded, it was grievously wrong. The apathy
of the great mass of the people upon this subject
showed that there was no real grievance calling for re-
dress; the whole thing, he said, had been notoriously
got up by a few interested persons. Marriage with a
deceased wife's sister was expressly prohibited by the
Divine law.

Mr. BUXTON deduced from social considerations an
argument in favour of these marriages.
Mr. COLLIER 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. Even if the question was doubtful, it should be
left to the conscience of individuals. The alleged social
evils of legalising these marriages were, in his estima-
tion, of a visionary character, while the evils of main-
taining the present law were great and certain.
Mr. BAINES likewise supported the Bill, knowing, he
said, many oases illustrating the hardship and injustice
of the present law. As to the theological argument,
applying his own plain understanding to it, he could not
discover any Divine prohibition of marriage with a
deceased wife's skter ; and in nearly every Christian
State these marriages were permitted, either by dispen-
sation or otherwise.

Mr. DRUMMOND considered that Lord Lyndhurst's
Act, which he said was a gross violation of law,
had brought this question into its present position; 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.

Sir G. Lewis said he should give his cordial vote in
favour of the Bill. Up to 1835 these marriages were
voidable, not void, and practically many such marriages
were contracted and remained valid. Lord Lyndhurst's
Act rendered these marriages void in future, but recog-
nized the validity of those already contracted.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he should offer the strong-
est opposition to the Bill. He then weighed the evils
of this alteration of the law against its alleged advan-
tages, insisting that Lord Lyndhurst's Act was no altera-
tion of the principle of the law, whereas the present
Bill was a novelty and an innovation.
Mr. Punee said, if the case rested solely upon
social grounds he admitted that much might be said on
both sides. He thought the real question was whether
the HORN was competent, without further information,
to decide off-hand, upon A disputed text, that there was
no such prohibition in the Bible. He suggested that it
was the duty of the Government to issue a commission
to Hebrew scholars to ascertain the true construction of
the text.

..._ ~..._..
Mr. MILNER supported the Bill on behalf of the middle
and lower classes, who, he said, broke and would con-
tinue to break a law which was repugnant to their
moral sense. _

Mx. AKIIOYD also supported the Bill, which would
repeal a law, which, he said, was habitually disre-
garded.
MALINB wee constrained, he said, after full con-
sideration, to give his full support to the Bill. He was
satisfied there wee nothing in the theological argu-
ment; that there was no Scriptural prohibition of these
marriages ; and, looking at the differenties of opinion
and at the effect. of the law as it stood, he thought it
expedient to pass the Bill.
After a short reply from Lord Bray, the House
divided, when the second reading of the Bill was air.
clod by 174 to 134.
The House adjourned at a quarter past 5 o'clock,