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

ROYAL CALEDONIAN ASYLUM.

The 38th anniversary festival of this society was held
yesterday at the Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen-
street. In the unavoidable absence of his Grace the
Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, the Duke of Bucclend'
took the chair, supported by Sir Charles Forbes, Bart.,
and many other celebrities of the Scottish Society, &c.
There were very few of the guests who attended in the
national costume.

The vocalists engaged were the Misses Wells, Mr.
Fielding, Mr. Charles, and Mr. E. Williams ; but to the
names announced we were pleased to find added those
of Mrs. Charles and Miss Ada Taylor. In addition to
the band of the Royal Caledonian Asylum were
Ross, the Queen's piper ; M'Kenzie, the piper of the
Duke of Sutherland ; the piper of the Marquis of Staf-
ford ; Campbell, the piper of Sir Charles Forbes ; and
Wilson, the piper of the Caledonian Society.
The noble Chairman gave, "The health of her Majesty
the Queen." Under ordinary circumstances it would be
sufficient to name her Majesty ; but it must be recol..
lected that her Majesty was the patroness of this society.
Her Majesty had shown in every way her appreciation
of the services of the army and navy ; she had not been
content with the information conveyed to her by de-
spatches, but she had been pleased to make a personal
inspection of the gallant heroes who had been wounded
in the Crimea.
National Anthem.

The CHAIRMAN next gave "Hisßoyal Highness Prince
Albert, Albert Duke of Rothemy and Lord of the Isles,
and the rest of the Royal Family." (Great cheering.>
In that toast he begged to include the name specially of
the Duke of Cambridge, who had so much distinguished
himself in the Crimea. (Cheers.)
Glee—" 0, merry raay the keel row."
The CM/LIBMAN next gave " The Army and Navy,
and may victory crown their arms."
Sir CHARLES FORBES returned thanks for the army,
not forgetting the Highland brigade. (Cheers.)
Sir JOHN HERON MAXWELL returned thanks on the
part of the navy ; and he was followed by Captain FISH..
BOURNE, the representative of the Patriotic Fund.
The Rev. Dr. CUMMING read the report, from which.
we give the following extracts :
" The war has invested this asylum with new and most
eloquent claims, Numbers of our Scottish countrymen
have fallen in the Crimea, like their ancestors of old—
" With their backs to the field and their feet to the foe.'
sTalicery have
ificeso nftolyhbefalaice
etn,da—ndthtehye havestur heroically
ering died.softhewo T
u ndehde:
plead for liberality to the children they have left behincL
them. .

;Vrery soon after the victory of the Alma a movement
was made by the directors to raise a special fund to enable
them to admit at once, without the formalities of an elec-
tion, 25 orphans of Scottish soldiers, sailors, and marines
killed in the East, and 100 children of the Scottish soldiers,.
sailors, and marines wounded in the East, at a reduced.
rate. Your noble president, the Right Hon. Lord Kin.
Baird, to whose personal exertions in this matter you are
deeply indebted, and other noblemen and gentlemen, libe.
ut z,ouut. were
raised for this special object—a sum we implore and urges
you to enable us to double in the ensuing year.
"We have ample room for more than twice the present
number of children; we have able and laborious teachers in.
both departments of our school ; we have watchful auditors
of accounts, a rigid economy in the management of our
finances; and all we now need, next to the blessing of God,
is your determination this night to enjoy the luxury of
emptying your purses and troubling your bankers in behalf
of this noble Christian charity. The children now in the
asylum, amounting to 43 boys and 38 girls, have been ex•
amined in all the usual branches of education, and have.
given' ample evidence of the labours of their teachers and.
the attention they have paid to their studies. The healthy,
and happy appearance of the children evinces that they
are the inmates of a home.

ehiidLowlander,r
ea
have.
" The teachers have done their duty; the directors have
doneof
fo
nwe
ht htohemierisr.ndoTut ht
yeag a;
ftl Isehwen tgomr
ef men—hgeHrs
aeivgehaslrai)nn dt
het ti.le• and
eCrimea,,
a ea,
with.
nothing but the dewdrops and the sunshine to gild them,
and a nation's grateful acclamation, are their noblest,
monument. "
Oar Sovereign has done her part, in admitting to her
presence at the Horse Guards her shattered but victorious
heroes, and with all the condescension of a Sovereign, and,
all the tenderness of a woman, speaking kind words and.
bestowing Royal marks of approval ; and his Royal High-
ness the Duke of Rothesay has done his,
by presenting 2501
guineas to the asylum. It now remains then for you to do
yoir duty." _

Sir John Heron Maxwell here introduced to the at-
tention of the meeting those who were the recipients of
the benefits of this charity, and more especially those
who had been admitted who were the orphan children of
many of the gallant heroes, non-commissioned officers~
and others, who had either fallen in battle in the Crimea
or
which ad
leddied
anadcehr f
at
thael irnefls
uuletns
tohf
e cer
mv aerai
.thous diseases

LATER DESPATCH OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY MAIL FOR
THE SEAT OF WAIL—GENERAL POST OFFICE, JUNE,
1855.—1 n consequence of an alteration in the
hour of despatching the French Mediterranean packets
which leaves Marseilles every Monday, the supplemen-
tary mail for the seat of war, hitherto despatched from
this office by the day mail to France on the previous Sa.
turday, will not, in future, be made up until the evening
of that day, and all letters for the British forces or the
transport service in Greece, Turkey, and the Black Sea,
or for the British hospital at Scutari, posted or received
in London in time for the night mail to France, will be
forwarded in such supplementary mail. The supple.
mentary mails intended to be despatched by
be made up on the morning of everyasthe Tuesday,
nent.---RowrAND RILL, secretary.

LUPE 1 IAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The Gateshead and Hexham Roads Bill, and the Dun-
dalk Harbour and Port Bill were considered and ordered
to be read a third time.
Petitions were presented from various places in Kent
against the exceptional clauses in the Sunday Trading
Bill ; from places in favour and against the Marriage
Bill ; and in favour of Mr. M. Gibson's Education Bill,
from South Wales. •
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into committee on this bill.
On clause 1 being put to the house,
Sir F. THESIGER said that any discussion on the
principle of this bill would now be out of place. They
were called on to consider this question ; and in
proposing his amendments to this bill he trusted
it would not be at all considered that he bad waived
any objections he had originally entertained to the bill,
but, on the contrary, he begged to inform the house that
those objections had been considerably strengthened by
the arguments he listened to that were used by the sup-
porters of this bill on its second reading. (Hear, hear.)
He might have left the details of the measure to
those interested in it, if it were not that he
found on reference to its provisions that there was an
attempt to violate one of the most important principles
of legislation by giving to the bill a retrospective opera-
tion. The committee would no doubt remember that from
1835 marriages of the description it was now snaght to
legalise were positively prohibited by law, and in express
terms were declared null and void to all intents and
purposes, and the object of this bill was to legalise :such
marriages as had taken place between parties who have
deliberately and knowingly violated that law. (Hear.)
He confessed it appeared to him that any more dan-
gerous and mischievous principle than that attempted
to be established by this bill could hardly be imagined.
(Hear.) He considered it wou;d be conceded on all
hand s,that laws having a retrospective operation ought to
be cautiously passed and applied almost to extreme
cases, and that the condition of the persons who, havirg
violated that law under particular circumstances, im-
posed on Parliament the almost moral necessity to inter-
pose on their behalf. From time to time, but very
sparingly indeed, where parties had violated the
law through ignorance or inadvertence, the Legis-
lature had interposed for their relief ; but on
no occasion had the Legislature sanctioned or
legalised the act. They had shown their opposition to
passing retrospective laws, by making exceptions in
cases where penalties had been incurred, as to suits
which bad been instituted even by common informers.
Having said there was no one instance in which the
Legislature had interposed to legalise an act that had
been committed against the provisions of an act of Par-
liament, he did not suppose an act that had recently
passed that house to protect two of its members would
be cited as a precedent applicable to the present bill,
that being one which could not in the least degree affect
the consideration of the propriety of their passing such
a bill as this. Many hon. members, entertaining the
opinion that the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister was neither prohibited by divine law nor that
there was any moral or social objection to it, voted for the
second reading of the bill, but those hon. members must
concede to him that supposing such to be the case,
Parliament was entitled to pass a law prohibiting such
marriages, and that such having been done it was
the duty of every good citizen and subject to obey
that law—(bear, hear)—and they would no doubt agree
with him, that the wilful transgressors of the law of the
land were such as were not entitled to the protection of
Parliament —(hear)—a nd the persons who would be bone-
fitted by the retrospective operations of the bill were
the persons who were precisely in the predicament he
had jnst described. It was unnecessary for him to
advert to the association formed many years since by
persons of wealth, station, and influence for the purpose
of procuring the repeal of the law prohibiting these
marriages, and which they were entitled to do, pro-
vided they did it in a legitimate and proper manner ;
but whether the means they resorted to were proper
or not he would not stop to inquire. Whilst, however,
it was perfectly legitimate for those persons to inter-
fere to procure a repeal of the law to which they
objected, so long as that law remained in operation it
was their bounden duty to obey it. It was clear many
of those persons--he might say the whole of them, in
fact—had contracted their marriages, knowing the pre-
cise state of the law with regard to them. (Hear.)
The marriage with a deceased's wife sister was
always one of doubtful propriety, and no prudent
man would have contracted such a marriage without first
ascertaining the law on the subject, and knowing
what it was. He (Sir F. Thesiger) should venture
to think no moral man would have venturel to
violate it, but have submitted to its provisions until that
law was repealed. With regard to these marriages not
being contrary to divine law, nor direct by moral or social
obligation, no one ever ventured to say that they
were ordered by the divine law, or directed by moral
law; but it being a matter which a human Legislature had
a right to control or direct, the parsing an act of the above
description, prohibiting these marriages, clearly created
and imposed a moral obligation. (Hear, hear.)
That being so, here were some persons who, by
their own confession, have contracted these mar-
riages, knowing they were prohibited by law, coming to
Parliament and saying that although they have know-
ingly and deliberately violated the law, we ask
you to interpose for our protection, and to
make that legal which at the time we contracted
these marriages was illegal, and continued to be so
down to this time. It might be said that the legisla-
ture, in fact, on the former occasion passed a law
respecting these marriages, having a retrospective
operation, and he would endeavour to explain the real
provisions of the act of 1835, which was not of that cha-
racter which the hon. member for North Warwickshire
supposed it to be. Previous to that time marriages within
the prohibited degrees were absolutely void, but could
only be declared so by a sentence of the Ecelesi-
a,tical Court, and that during the life of the
parties, and therefore the children of such persons whose
marriages had not been declared void were legitimate,
and entitled to all the rights of ehildren born orefer ordi-
nary circumstances. These persons were, however, and
the children especially, in a very precarious predicament,
because during any time of the lives of their parents the
marriages might have been declared void, and in
order to prevent that recourse used to be had to what
was termed friendly suits, which were kept in existence
during the joint lives of the parents. When that device
was not resorted to it might have happened that at a
late period of their lives some person entitled to the
succession by a suit invalidated the marriage, as the
parties themselves from some caprice might do the same,
which was a state of things that ought not to have been
permitted. If in such a case the Legislature had inter-
fered it might have declared the marriage void or valid.
Parliament, however, adopted a medium course, and
provided that any marriage that had taken place. prior
to the passng of the act should be considered legitimate,
and that the legitimacy of the children of that marriage
should not be questioned. (Hear, hear.) He thought
that parties who had since the passing of the act con-
tracted marriage within the prohibited degree knowing, as
they were bound to do, its provisions were entitled to no
consideration from the house. He firmly believed that
if the bill in its present state was passed, the children
of the poor would derive no advantage, and as far as
those of the wealthy were concerned no good could be
obtained by the present measure, because he defied any
one to say that their moral or social condition would be
improved by it ; but it could not be said that according
to the retrospective clauses of the bill the rights of
parties would not be materially interfered with.
(Hear, hear.) He warned the house against passing
a law, the effect of which would be to give offenders a
reward for their offence. (Hear.) He trusted, there-
fore, that the house would at once adopt the amendment.
Mr. HEYWOOD opposed the amendment, thinking
it impossible for Parliament to create by any enactment
a moral obligation that should be binding upon all.
(Hear, hear,) Moral obligation as it at present stood
sanctioned these marriages, and he did not think it was
the duty of Parliament to attempt to alter it. He
thought the present bill ought to have the chance of
going through both houses of Parliament. (Hear.)
Lord R. CECIL supported the amendment.
Mr. B. DENISON considered the act of 1835 a com-
plete failure, and he would, therefore, vote for the
amendment. The wealthy classes of society set the bill
of 1835 at defiance because they had money in their
pockets ; but the working community (lid worse, be-
cause, in consequence of its provisions, they committed
the grossest immorality in order to escape from the
provisions of the act. He was firmly of opinion that the
tide had set in in favour of legislation on the subject,
especially for the benefit of the lower classes, whom they
were more bound to respect than the higher. The act
of 1835, in his opinion, was nothing but a snare, and the
sooner it was put an end to the better.
Mr. COLLIER said this was not a question of pre-
cedent, but one of principle. If the house should be of
opinion, putting other considerations on one side, that we
were wrong in passing the act of 1835, let them annn
it at once, and no longer permit the immoral effects ii
Was calculated to produce, and was producing, to re-
main in operation. (Hear.)
Mr. NAPIER agreed that the question was one of
principle, and viewing it in that light proceeded to con-
sider the improper effect of sanctioning an illegal act.
In support of his arguments he referred to some vations on this point which had been made boybstehr
e-
Bishop of St. David's, Lord Brougham, and other au-
thorities.
Mr. B. Dons
the
in replying to a remark which
had fallen from the he
member for Dublin (Mr.
Napier), said it was not upon the ious view of the
question that be had referred tortehlieg opinion of the
Bishop of St. David's, but siropplyonuspocicilett immoral
tendency of the bill in its effect u
general.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. in
EBRINGTON had very frequently voted with
the bill, thinking its operation would be very consider.
ably to promote the cause of religion and morality. He
could see no ground for supporting the bill so unjustifi-
able as that of merely causing discomfort to and interference
with the feelings of some sentimental people, which had
been put forward as an argument for " placing a stumb-
(Hear.) He could
ling block in our brother's way."

conceive those who believed these marriages were prohi-
bited by Scripture offering every impediment to their
legalisation, but he could not conceive bow those who
bad at heart the welfare of their fell, ,w.su hjects endea-
voured to legislate in such a mance: as would have the
effect of encouraging, or, in fact, compelling, the com-
mission of immordity to a very great extent. With re-
gard to the retrospective question which was now
before the house he could not agree with it, and
although the authorities quoted in its favour were un-
questionably high, he never heard arguments which had
been advanced upon them more unsatisfactory.
Mr. FRESLIFIELD, after denying that the act of

1835 was a retrospective enactment, went on to contend
that to legalise the retrospective operation of the pro-
posed act would be contrary to all precedent. He,
therefore, protested against the principle of introducing
retrospective legislation in a case where there was no
call whatever for it ; and at the same time asserted that
the general feeling of society was in no way favourable
to the change.
Lord SEYMOUR would vote against the amendment,
because if the bill were carried the operation of such a
provision as a retrospective enactment would produce
not only confusion, but be unjust towards those who had
delayed contracting marriage with the sisters of their
deceased wives until the act was passed.
Sir F. THESIGER said the remarks which had fallen
from the noble lord (Lord Seymour) bad impressed upon
him more than ever the necessity of abstaining
from legislation altogether on this question. (Hear.)
The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill had cited
a case as applicable to the retrospective operation of
this act, the legalising the marriages of priests. These
marriages, he (Sir F. Thesiger) contended, were never
contrary to the law. They were valid according to the
common law of the land, but not so with regard to the
ecclesiastical law. The hon. member for Plymouth
denied his assertion that the act of 1835 was not retro-
spective, but contended it was applicable to the present
bill. He (Sir F. Thesiger) repeated the act of 1835 had
no retrospective operation, its object being to declare
those marriages for the future null and void, and to pro-
tect the children of such marriages. The supporters
of this bill had not ventured to deny these marriages
had been consummated in direct violation of the
law, and he hoped the committee would not
set such a mischievous example, as the passing of this
act would be to encourage the people to violate the law.
He asked the learned Attorney-General, supposing a man
married his deceased wife's sister, and after that his de-
ceased wife's niece, which would be the valid marriage ?
The ATTO RN EY-G ENE RAL con troverted the state-
ment of Sir F. Thesiger that the act of 1835 was not a
retrospective measure. He proceeded to show from
" Hansard" that such was its intention, and that the bill
now before the house was rendered necessary in conse-
quence of the ex post facto legislation of 1835.
Mr. WALPOLE said that with reference to the act
of 1835, in one sense it might be considered a retrospec-
tive one, though in rrality it was not so. The object of
that act was not to allow persons to remain in that un-
certain state as before with regard to their legitimacy,
and for the future to remove that uncertainty as to what
was the law of the land, and prevent these marriages
from taking place.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the case he had mentioned of
the priests being allowed to marry was one strictly ap-
plicable as a precedent for retrospective legislation, and
proceeded to read the preamble of the acts of Parliament
proved with reference to it.
Mr. HENLEY, who rose to address the house amidst
cries of "divide," said the women themselves were the best
judges of the social part of this question, and were this
bill left to them for their decision they would negative
it. If it were proposed to introduce a clause in the bill
that one woman might marry two brothers he thought
it would not receive the approbation of the house, and
he could see no difference between the feelings of the
different sexes on this question. He proceeded to argue
that the precedent cited for retrospective legislation in
the case of the priests was not applicable to this bill.
He believed that the clause, if adopted as it at present
stood, would be productive of the worst results.
After some further discussion the committee divided
on the amendment, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it . l3O
Majority against the amendment —47
The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause
as originally proposed was allowed to stand part of the
bill.

On clause 2 being put,
Sir F. THESIGER wished the question to be put
upon a footing that could be understood by the public.
He was desirous of knowing whether under the provi-
sions of the bill children of the first or second marriage
were to he considered legitimate, or both ?
Mr. HEYWOOD considered that by the provisions of
the bill the children of the first marriage would be legi-
timate.
Mr. WALPOLE wished to know what was to be-
come of the children of the second marriage, because,
according to the statement of the hoe, gentleman, those
children would be bastards ?
Mr. HENLEY was desirous of knowing the Attor-
ney-General's opinion 'upon the subject.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sa►d, in the event of
a man contracting a marriage with a deceased wife's
si-ter, and afterwards with a deceased wife's niece, the
first marriage would be the lawful one under the provi-
sions of the proposed act, but in the event of a man
contracting first a man iage with a deceased wife's sis-
ter, and then contracting a marriage lawful according
to the existing law, the present act would legalise that
marriage.
Sir F. THESIGER objected to the retrospective
clauses of the bill.
After a short discussion upon the question as to which
of the children of two illegal marriages were entitled to
legitimacy under the new act, and in which Mr. Keat-
ing, Mr. Napier, Mr. Heywood, Sir F. Thesigor, and
Mr. Walpole took part,
Mr. COLLIER said all those objections which bad
been raised to his mind rather pointed to the incon-
venience of the act of 1835, and the desirability of get-
ting rid of it as soon as possible. He did not think the
cases of marriage which bad been referred to as being
likely to arise were within the bounds of probability.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE objected to the proposition
of the hon, member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), that the
objections which had been urged against this
measure only pointed to the desirability of doing
away with the act of 1835. To his (Mr. Phillimore's)
mind they rather pointed to the necessity of not pro-
ceeding further with such a measure as that without bet•
ter considering its clauses, and better understanding
them. With the strong feeling on his mind that the act
was not properly understood even by its mover, and none
of them could place a proper construction on one of its
most important clauses, with the strong impression on
his mind that the whole subject ought to be well di-
gested and re-considered before any further proceedings
were taken with regard to it, he should move that the
chairman now report progress..
The motion havine: been put accordingly,
Sir F. THESIGER pointed out that the cases which
the hon. member for Plymouth had characterised as not
heing probable had actually occurred, and could be re-
ferred to ; and then proceeded to reiterate his objections
to the anomalous phraseology of three of the most im-
portant clauses of the bill, the words of one of which di-
rectly negatived the other.
Mr. LOWE said, it appeared to him that the princi-
ple on which the majority of the committee seemed de-
sirous of legislating was perfectly plait-, and the only
difficulty they encountered was one of the clauses of the
bill, which was inoperative in carrying out the object
they had in view. The act was one of indulgence,
and was intended to place those who • had
violated the law in the same position as if
the act of 1835 had not been passed, without, how-
ever, taking away any of the legal rights already ob-
tained under the law. That principle was clearly esta-
blished by the 3d clause. Then again, the question had
been raised as to priority of legitimacy in certain cases.
Now, these cases might very easily be provided for,
without retarding the further progress of the bill, if the
house were really in earnest in a desire to legislate in
the matter, by the insertion of a clause fixing the priority
when the report was brought up. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the house had been treated with
various opinions from legal gentlemen respecting the
validity of the two marriages named by Mr. Walpole.
They were told that the bill would more immediately
affect the humbler classes of society, but he was inclined
to believe such was not the case, for if so they
would never have heard of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
He was of opinion that the house was entitled to
have placed before it clear and positive clauses to show
them how the difficulties mentioned by hon. members
could be effectually and satisfactorily got rid of.
Mr. L. HEY WORTH supported the bill, considering
the act of 1835 an iniquitous one.
Mr. HEADLAM who supported the bill, observed
nothing was easier than to insert words in the clauses
of the bill that would get rid of the difficulties com-
plained of.
Mr. HEYWOOD said he had no objection to the
course.

The CHAIRMAN then put the question, that the chair-
man report progress and ask leave to sit again, on
which the committtee divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it 124
Majority against the motion
—24
The committee then proceeded with the bill. On
clause 3 being read, which provides " that no marriage
with a deceased wife's sister which has been or shall be
celebrated at any time or place whatever shall be void
after the passing of this act,"
Sir F. TFIESIGER proposed as an amendment that
the words " which has been or shall be celebrated at any
time or place whatever," be struck out of the clause.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment 2G
The amendment was consequently lost.
On the question that clause 2 stand part of the bill,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he under-
stood that during his temporary absence an attack had
been made upon him for not being present. He could
assure the house he was absent on public business, and
he trusted that the house would pardon him under such
circumstances for being so. The learned gentleman
stated again the opinion that he had previously given in
the course of the morning relative to the validity of
marriages under the bill.

Mr. —IIE:!NTLEY could assure the Attorney-General
that in the observations he had made about his absence
he meant no reflections upon him, but-was only anxious
that the house should not proceed in the absence of the
first officer of the Crown.
Mr. G-. :BUTT objected to the proposed retrospec-
tive operation of the bill, and trusted that the committee
would pause before it passed any further clauses of the
measure.

Mr. HILYARD said that the present bill sought, by
retroactive legislation to marry parties against their
will. (Laughter.)
Mr. LOWE defended the bill.
After some further discussion,
The com mittee then divided on the question that
clause 2 do stand part of the bill, when it appeared that
there were
Noes

........... 126
97

.....................
.............. -
Maority
. --29
The clause wasj
accordingly •
areed t
On claug e 3, go.
Sir F. ThIESIGER said that as he bad some very
StrOng objet Wens to the retrospective clauses of the bill,