The Press.
London, England, 1855-05-12 00:00:00

THY PRESS.

drances. To the Indian army itself he contended
the change now proposed would prove beneficial, by
placing it under the command of royal officers.
Mr. V. SMITH examined the consequences that
would follow any attempt to amalgamate the Indian
and the royal services, deducing the conclusion that
it must result in considerable confusion and mutual
disadvantage. With respect to the rank of the
officers, he urged that the recent memorandum had
more than a nominal effect, and would facilitate the
employment of Indian officers for the general service
of the country in the Crimea or elsewhere. The
question altogether, he considered, was unfit for
reference to a select committee.

Mr. OTWAY spoke in favour of the motion, and Mr.
J. G. PHILLIMOBE against it. Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR,
also opposing the resolution, contended that it was
unwise to disturb the arrangements made for the ad
ministration of Indian affairs only two years since.

Mr. John M'Gregor having spoken and Sir E.
I'erry replied, a division took place, in which the reso-
lution was negatived by 171 to 02-109.

NEWSPAPER STAMP BILL.

The third reading of this bill produced a desultory
discussion on Monday night in the Commons. It
began by a complaint from Mr. HADFIELD that the
limitation of the right of transmission by post to
fifteen days would have an injurious effect on news•
paper property. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, with his usual compliance, said that he was
quite willing to extend the privilege to thirty days.
Mr. BRIGHT rose to protest against this extension,
and added objections to the present mode of stamp-
ing newspapers, which could only be stamped in
the four towns of Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester,
and London. He would support the abolition of the
stamp altogether, and let newspapers pay for postage
on the same principle as letters.
Mr. CAYLEY said that this was all very well for the
towns, where people clubbed together, and a single
newspaper served twenty or thirty people ; but in
the country a paper, after having bee❑ read by one
subscriber, was sent to another three or four miles
off, and so on for ten days or more, before it reached
all the subsc ibers. The bill was not a just one,
and he should oppose its passing.
Mr. EWART replied to this by arguing that it was
better for newspapers to spring up naturally in their
own district than to prop up their circulation by arti-
ficial assistance.
After some further conversation, Mr. WHITESIDE
complained of the alterations which had appeared,
disappeared, and reappeared, until no one knew
what the bill really was. The Chancellor of the Ex
chequer had endeavoured to introduce a copyright
clause, showing his own consciousness of the danger
in which the bill would place existing interests.
That attempt had failed, and now the right hon.
gentleman asked them to pass a bill of which he had
himself virtually acknowledged the danger and in-
justice. He complained of the injustice of limiting
the size of newspapers to be carried by post. It had
Leen said that the limitation would only affect ad•
yertisement sheets, which were handsomely paid for,
but the oversize of the advertisement part of the
paper was really owing to the news, but for the ex-
tent of which the advertisements could easily be
compressed within the prescribed limits. He con-
tended that the mere addition of weight would not
add to the expense of the Post-office, and asked on
what reason the arbitrary distinction between four
ounces and six ounces was founded.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his
proposed copyright clause was intended to calm the
apprehensions of other people as to the effects of
piratical newspapers on the legitimate press. He
himself had but small share in those apprehenslons.
As to the proposal to allow the weight of six ounces
to go free by post for the penny, it would have the
effect that up to six ounces newspapers would be
charged by weight, and beyond six ounces by their
superficial measure. I'ublications, too, issued at
more than seven days' interval would be charged by
their superficial inches. He pointed out the confu-
sion that would arise in consequence. As for the
argument that increased weight would give no more
trouble to the Post-office, why should they charge a
letter of one ounce double one of two ounces ?

At this stage of the debate Lord Palmerston
called attention to the evident inoisposition of the
Speaker, and suggested that the house should get
into committee business as soon as possible.
The debate was immediately adjourned to Friday,
Mr. Disraeli concurring in the suggestion.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S
SISTER.

The adjourned debate was resumed on Wednesday
by Sir W. HEATHcoTE, who contended that the sup-
porters of the bill were bound to produce strong
evidence in its favour, as it was opposed to the prac-
tice of Christianity from the earliest, ages. He denied
that at any time the English law had shown any
hesitation in the matter. Lord Lyndhurst's act may
have got rid of facilities for the evasion of the law,
but on the point of law itself there had been no

doubt. If the present law was to be abrogated
because it was broken, we should have to abrogate
our laws against bigamy and adultery on such a
principle. Even in countries where such marriages
were permitted by dispensation, a perpetual protest
was kept up against them. He maintained that
their prohibition was no religious grievance, but Ives
involved in the ordinary consideration how far indi-
vidual freedom of action was to yield to the general
sense of the country. If they followed the example
of continental nations, and broke through the table
of prohibitions which they now observed, had they
made up their mind where they were to take their
stand ? He then argued at some length from
Leviticus that such marriages were virtually and
morally forbidden by the law of God.
Mr. PRIER said that the present law was the
result of a surprise, and that its supporters were
therefore bound to show good cause for its main-
tenance. No restriction should be imposed on
natural liberty without a strong reason, and he con-
tended that in the present case there was no such
reason. The Divine prohibition could not be proved,
and the social propriety of forbidding such marriages
was doubtful. After a reference to the interpreta•
tion of the scriptural texts, he argued that marriage,
by a solemn act of the Legislature, was now made
a civil contract. The people wets not bound by the
practice of any particular Church; they were suffer-
ing under a grievance which affected the lower
classes equally with the upper. The majority of the
Dissenters was eager for its removal. The Estab-
lished Church was equally divided, and he trusted
the measure would be passed by a large majority.
Mr. It. PALMER said that the law did not rest on
Lord Lyndhurst's or any other act ; its true origin
was in a solemn determination of all Christendom,
based on a general and comprehensive interpretation
of Scripture. He cited at great length the canons
and the ecclesiastical jurists, to show how universally
such marriages were condemned by the highest
authorities of the ecclesiastical law. There was great
laxity in the practice of the Continent as to many
marriages within the prohibited degree, but that
laxity was accompanied with a distinct recognition
of the fact that they were unlawful marriages. If
the universality of public feeling against the mar-
riages in question could not be proved, no more
could it be proved against polygamy, in favour of
which, at the present moment, the Mormons were
putting forth very plausible documents. lie denied
that in the actual state of things individual liberty
was in any way interfered with, while by its altera-
tion the comfort of many thousand homes would be
seriously interfered with.
Mr. LOWE thought that the question of polygamy
was one that had much better be let alone. He
deprecated placing the question on theological
grounds; it should rely on the instinctive sense of
right and wrong of mankind. The house had no
right to raise their own personal convictions into a
standard, and to prevent other people from following
that line of conduct which was in their own opinion
lawful and desirable. That house was no conclave
fur the settlement of ecclesiastical disputes; they
were there to legislate for this country, and no pro-
hibition law should be enacted unless it was based
on the moral obligations of men and demanded by
a sense of right in the human conscience. Against
the argument from the frequent violation of the
present law it was urged that all laws were violated,
but it was in most cases with the consciousness of
guilt, but in this case with the full approbation of
their own conscience. He therefore urged the
removal of a yoke which prevented men from follow-
ing what they believed to be the dictation of the
Word of God and their own sense of right.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that if it was dangerous to
meet the question of polygamy, it was equally dan-
gerous to meet that before them. He denied that
the Divine prohibition was in any way doubtful.
When it was urged that this was a matter of con-
science, was the conscience meant of individuals, or
the collective conscience of all mankind? If of indi-
viduals, why legislate at all on matters ecclesiastical ?
He contended, from historical proofs, that the law as
it stood was the general and universal voice of Chris-
tendom. Private opinion might call the law in
question, but only as it called in question other laws
regarded as sacred by Christians. This was called a
question of religious liberty, but on this principle
every ordinance of the Church of England might be
modified or done away. He then recounted the
many analogous changes in the law which would, to
be consistent, follow the present. This last was one of
many permissions which ought on the same princi-
ple to be granted, and he said that he had a right to
ask how far it was intended to proceed. He pointed
out the mass of difficulties that would arise from
thus disturbing principles so long settled. It was a
retrograde movement to go back from Christianity to
conscience, and he believed that the proposed mea-
sure would be pernicious to those results which the
Christian religion had brought out for mankind.
Mr. SPOONER said that if be were asked how far he
intended to go, he should answer, as far as the Bible