The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-21 00:00:00

of which let us examine this sentence for a
moment piecemeal, it scarcely matters how cur-
,orily. "No mistake" it begins—rather a
mild phrase by which to specify those wait-
ron blunders, those altogether monstrous and
?gregious short-comings which have already cost
the country in round numbers, as Mr. BRIGHT
took occasion to remind the House of Commons
only the other evening, between 30,000 and
40,000 men, and between 30,000,0001. and
40,000,000/. sterling ! "No mistake, however
triiiing".-=Good GOD, is the loss of an entire
-trmy in a single winter trifling ? Is the destruc-
tion in one season of some 30,000 men trifling ?
Is the squandering of revenue to the amount of
10,000,000/. sterling trifling? Nevertheless, to
proceed in the obvious analysis of this unlucky
sentence. "No mistake, however trifling, can
occur, no want or weakness exist, which is not at
once denounced." Not so, we protest ; not so—
the word is altogether rashly and inaptly selected.
It is not the want which is denounced, it is not
the weakness—it is rather the inefficiency of those
shameless Ministers whose bungling caused that
want, whose timidity and vacillation originated
that weakness, that the press of England has been
all this while so loudly and earnestly denouncing.
Howbeit, to give once more this unfortunate
sentence in its entirety. "No mistake, however
trifling, can occur, no want or weakness exist,
which is not at once denounced, and even some-
times exaggerated with a kind of morbid satis-
faction !" As to the " exaggeration "we leave
the settlement of that question to the result of
the evidence taken from the lips of somewhat
credible witnesses, in "number seventeen," before
Mr. ROEBUCK'S memorable Committee of Inquiry
into the State of the Army before Sebastopol.
Corroborated as that ex cathedra evidence is by
the ex officio testimony of men such as S. G. 0.,
or as the Times almoner, or as the Hon. Member
for North Northamptonshire. While in reference
to the unjust statement that these denunciations
have been sometimes " exagge rate d"—ho w ?—why,
actually, it is said, " with a kind of morbid satir-
faction"—THAT we leave implicitly to the conscience
of the country, to the sense of justice of thirty-
seven millions of our follow-countrymen ! Sub-
mitting it simply to the nation at large, as we do
so, whether a brand-upon-the-patriotism like this
is precisely the meed which has been deserved by
that free Press of England, which was the first to
lay bare the deficiences of our noble army in the
Crimea, the first to disclose betimes the exceeding
peril of its position before Sebastopol. Whereby
—from the open speaking of the Press in the
sorest time of need the English soldier ever had
to encounter—the remnant at least of our first
heroic band of warriors was preserved so as to be
the nucleus for the formation of a second arma-
ment. &Tough. It is sufficient for us that we
have here selected for analysis but a single
phrase, but one solitary sentence from the remark-
able harangue delivered in the Trinity House, on
the 9th inst., by the Prince Consort. That single
phrase, and that solitary sentence, we content
ourselves with particularising as we have here
particularised them, to the end that we may thus
earnestly regret the untoward circumstance of his
Royal Highness having expressed sentiments so de-
rogatory to his high reputation for prudential fore-
thought—implying, as the language of the Prince
does, but as we cannot induce ourselves to belief e
his Royal gighness could possibly have intended
it to do, a Lubt as to the patriotism of our jour-
nalists, and as to the stability of our Constitu-
tional Government.

Another obstacle in the way of the Marriage

Law Amendment Bill bas been successfully en

countered. The several amendments of which
Sir FREDERIC THESIGER had given notice, with
the view, nominally, of preventing the retro-
spective action of the bill, but really to impede
its progress, and cause its virtual rejection, have
been disposed of—after several divisions, with
majorities varying from 24 to 47—in favour of
Mr. HEYWOOD'S clauses. The day was, however,
consumed in the conflict against bigotry and
intolerance, and there has been a further post-
ponement until the 10th of July, when we sup-
pose, in accordance with the tactics hitherto dis-
played by the minority, the Fabian policy will again
be resorted to, with a view of retarding that which
c tnnot be entirely-prevented. It is, therefore,
indispensable that every friend of civil and reli-
gious liberty—every person who considers that
there should be no undue restriction on the most
sacred and highly-prized privilege belonging to a
free man, should exert himself to bring this un-
toward state of affairs to a speedy conclusion, and
to sweep away the last, but perhaps the bitterest,
remnant of religious intolerance, the foulest blot
from the national statute-book. Nay, more, the
Government, which professes great liberality, should
itself take up the question, and take care that the
forms of Parliament should not be resorted to in
order to defeat the passing of an act of justice to
a numerous body of religious and moral indi- 1
viduals.

The voice of public opinion has been long heard
in favour of the equitable demand. For a series
of years in successive Parliaments the question has
been decided over and over again in every possible
form in which it could be put, and if the friends
of civil and religious liberty were but one-half as
earnest and energetic in their proceedings as the
bigots who seek to bind the entire body of Dissen-
ters by a doubtful canon, which is not even ac-
knowledged by the members of the Established
Church, the measure would long since have passed
into a law. Unfortunately, however, there is a
degree of apathy and indifference amongst many
of those who feel correctly, but who will not
make any extraordinary exertion to carry their
views into practical operation, and thus it has been
that the opponents of the bill have been en-
abled indirectly to extend its passing. This
insouciance we desire to get rid of. We wish to
stimulate those willing to do justice to so nume-
rous and influential a body of their countrymen
into making the necessary exertion to see that
there shall be no further procrastination. This
can only be done by every man who asserts the
right of private judgment, and who refuses to
allow others to dictate to him on matters which
are between him and his CREATOR alone, firmly
resolving that he will not vote for any candidate,
no matter how high his other qualifications, who
will net solemnly pledge himself to the repeal of
the existing restrictions on marriages with a de-
ceased wife's sister—that he will not support any
Ministry who will :not make it a Cabinet ques-
tion which they are determined to carry.
The theological part of the question has been long
since abandoned. None can venture to assert that
such connexions are prohibited by the clause, which
gives an implied sanction thereto, after the death
of the first wife. But as the restriction cannot
be justified from the text of " the Bible," it is
endeavoured to be sustained on certain canons,
which, as we have stated, are not recognised even
by the great majority of the members of the
Church of England themselves. Now, whatever
authority these canons may have so far as Church-
men are concerned, they cannot exercise the most
remote influence on those who conscientiously
protest against the Articles and Canons of that