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

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 embarrassing to the conduct
of the
Government, and which would be of 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. KINGLAKE,
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 for six
months. The question, he observed, was of impor.
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 whole
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 likewise 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 Gods
.
law, bad brought this question into its present pom•
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-