The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-14 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. LOCKE KING presented a petition from the
freeholders of East Surrey for an alteration of the law
of settlement.

Mr. A. PELLATT presented two petitions in favour
of the Friendly Societies Bill ; and one from the coopers
of the metropolis, and the other from the glass•cutters
of Manchester.

Mr. HADFIELD presented a similar petition from
the Shoemakers' Society of Sheffield to the same effect.
Mr. WICICHAM presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Shipley, in the parish of Bradford, and from
Windhill, in the parish of Calverley, West Riding of
Yorkshire, praying for the total prohibition of the sale
of intoxicating liquors on Sundays.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from a
public meeting held in the provinces in favour of the
more vigorous prosecution of the war.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from the
trade societies of Bristol in favour of the Friendly Socie-
ties Bill.

Mr. HEYWOOD presented six petitions from clergy-
men of the Church of England in and near the metro-
polis, in favour of the legalisation of marriage with the
sister of a deceased wife.
Mr. MOWATT presented a petition from Cambridge,
in favour of summary jurisdiction in cases of petty
larceny.

The
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from Southampton, praying for the repeal of taxes on
knowledge.

Mr. HEADLAM presented a petition from West.
moreland, complaining of the practice of Border mar•
riages.

POLAND. •
Mr. PHINN postponed his motion on the subject of
Poland until the 27th instant.
THE ARMY.
Colonel REED gave notice that that day fortnight he
should renew his motion for a committee of inquiry into
the practice of purchasing commissions in the army.
PROVINCIAL, LETTER-CARRIERS.
Mr. SCHOLEFIE.ILD asked the Secretary of the
Treasury, whether anymeasures were under consideration
for increasing the salaries of the provincial letter-carriers?
thMr. WILSON said the pay had been increased in
e ea,- _ •
od
ti ehrieCrylaorfgeratEnnigerY.ad i n ,
ana'aont Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Bris-
tol,was now going on a; to the expe-
on
f
similar increase in Birmingham and
TrIP PAST DAY.
Sir J. WAT.Waik'y
:aryacftricoemoaflwi
rit,ehrlsioolos
iit
the aesit days and holidays a dfri's
wished
to ask whether the
daily wage9nrloyttoent of Government,
P Tin the
fast
,‘vho day appointed
tal paidepp ioti nbwty:ll
tf re the
intention 2l s t ( i'ostyo
th©
1 c,13,1 l(tavr ce
rhi
1;;nao 7,
(ti ,
tiof I
so, w
stop a day's pay fro, n the salaries of all official men, or
1
only from the w ages of persons holding •flf •
enor ,
situations.
.. _____ 1

The CANCELH LOR of the EXCHEQuER said he
had made inquiry 'into the subject, and he was informed
that it was not the. practice of the departments of the
Admiralty, the Ordnance, the Board of `Yorks, the
Post-office, or filie Customs to stop a day's pay on such
occasions. (H:ear, hear.)
ARMY SURGEONS.
Mr. LESLI E said that as medical men, civilians, were
now being sent; out by the Government at fabulous sa-
laries, he wisht,d to ask whether it was the intention of

Goverment to raise tho salaries of the ill.peld, over•
worked army surgeons that are now employed with the
army in the East and hospitals at Scutari?
Air. PEEL said there was no intention to increase the
pay, as army surgeons were entitled to half-pay, and
other privileges, when not in service, which were not
enjoyed by the civilians.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S
. SISTER.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's
sister or a deceased's wife's niece. Having touched upon
the historical part of the subject, the hon. member stated
that since 1831, when the act prohibiting these mar-
riages was passed, it was calculated that 12,000 widow-
ers had married their deceased wife's sister, and therefore
allowing three children to each family, it gave 60,000
persons who were unjustly dealt with by the existing
law. It was said, however, that there was a large body
of ladies in this country who were opposed to such mar-
riages, but he did not believe it ; he thought the ladies
of England were quite disposed to leave the men to take
what course they liked best in the matter. (A
laugh.) The fact was, the existing law gave rise to
much immorality, because those who were prohibited
from marrying by the existing law did not hesitate to
cohabit together, particularly amongst the lower orders.
These marriages were legal on the continent and in
America, and it certainly argued ill for the
civilization of this country that we were behind
almost the rest of the world in this respect. The
Jews recognised these marriages ; so, indeed, did
the Scriptures, and there could be no doubt
that their prohibition was a curse to society. As, how-
ever, there was a great deal of prejudice in the northern
part of the kingdom upon this subject, he was quite
ready to leave Scotland out of the bill altogether. The
origin of the prohibition could be traced to the Greek
Church. The Roman Church copied it from
the Greek, and we had copied it ft om the
Romans ; but there was no competent authority for it
which men of sense ought to bow to, and since the pro-
hibition was contrary alike to the law of conscience and
the law of nature, he hoped he should be permitted to
bring in his bill.
Mr. KINNAIRD seconded the motion.
Sir F. THtSIGER opposed the introduction of the
bill. The question was not new, either to the house
or the country ; it had been thoroughly discussed, on
former occasions, in both Houses of Parliament,
and the details now offered in justification of reopening
the question were insignificant and inconclusive. He
agreed that this was a woman's question, and he believed
the feeling of the ladies of England was opposed to any
alteration in the existing law. No less than 11,000
women petitioned the Queen against the change when
the subject was last before Parliament; and believing that
the same feeling of opposition still prevailed be must
' resist this attempt to reopen the question. The com-
mission which formerly sat upon this subject permitted
themselves to become the instruments of •those who
were favourable to an alteration of the law, and
who had been mainly instrumental in procuring
the appointment of the commission, and the conse-
quence was, the preponderence of the evidence was in
favour of a change in the law. The majority of the wit-
nesses, however, were directly and personally interested
in obtaining the change, but the other side of the ques-
tion, appealing not to a class but to everybody, it
met the fate of everybody's business nobody
looked after it. There could be no doubt, however;
that both the jealousy of the laity and the clegry was
averse to any change in the law. It was incorrect to say
this was a poor man's question. Had it been merely
a poor man's question he feared it would not
have been taken up with so much spirit. The
fact was, however, that marriages of this descrip-
tion had been exceedingly unfrequent amongst the
lower classes. He objected to resorting to legisla-
tion for the sake of reneving parties who had knowingly
violated the law, not in ignorance of the law, but with
their eyes open, and fully aware of the illegality of the
marriage they had contracted. He deeply regretted the
diversity of opinicn which prevailed upon the religious
part of this question ; his own opinion was that the 18th
chapter of Leviticus directly prohibited these marriages,
and, therefore, so far from the Jewish law being-in favour
of these marriages, it was diametrically opposed to them.
The existing state of things previously by which the law
was evaded was most discreditable. Ile thought the
hon. gentleman's arguments were inconsistent with him-
self. The hon. gentleman said that the Divine law was
meant to restrain marriages within certain degrees of
consanguinity, as distinguished from affinity, and he
referred to the examples of Germany and America,
where, he said, a blind and enlarged view was taken and
acted upon regarding these marriages. He (Sir F. The-
siger) confessed he was not at all inclined to adopt any
such enlarged or liberal views, and professed a strict
adherence to the law of God. (Hear, hear.) What
would the hon. gentleman do with the case of Scotland?
The hon. member proposed that Scotland should be
excepted Irons the operation of the bill. But why so ?
If the bill was good for the other portions of the United
Kingdom, why should it not be equally good for Scot-
land ? The fact was, that the hon. gentleman knew
that the feeling of the people of Scotland revolted against
marriages of this sort ; and he knew he would have no
prospect of getting the' hill read a second time if he
included Scotland in it. He (Sir F. Thesiger)
hoped, however, that the Scottish members, who were
generally distinguished for their caution, would riot be
deceived by the omission of Scotland from the bill ; for
it was quite clear that, if the measure were once to pass
without Scotland, there could be no doubt but that is
w iuld be extended afterwards to that part of the empire.
The hon. member had also proposed, with the view of
di,arrning opposition, to introduce a provision to pre-
vent clergymen from being exposed to inconvenience by
refusing to perform marriage ceremonies under the act.
This showed the weakness of the lion. gentleman's case,
and that he had misgivings as to such marriages not
prohibited by Divine law. Ho (Sir F. Thesiger)
founded his objections to the bill on the ground that the
marriages which it proposel to sanction would be cor -
trary to Divine law—that the bill, if carried, woul I
deeply affect the happiness and comfort of numerous
families throughout the United Kingdom, introduce do-
mestic discord and discomfort, and be destructive of
those fine feelings [of affection with which-the wife's
nearest kin ought to be regarded by the husband.
Mr. BOWYER denied that the Jewish marriage law
was at all binding upon Christians, which lie thought
would lead us into all sorts of absurdities. These mar-
riages had never been prohibited by the common or the
statute law of England till Lord Lyndhurst's law of
1835. It was true that the statute of Henry VIII.
prohibited all marriages that were contrary to the law
of God ; but it still remained to be proved that
these particular marriages were in that predicament.
As a general principle, restrictions on marriage
were unwise, and as there were large bodies of dissenters
and Roman Catholics in England who did not admit
that these marriages were prohibited by divine law, he
maintained that this house ought to consult their views.
Mr. E. BALL quoted a long list of eminent risen
who denied that these marriages were a violation of
the divine law, and he contended that the feelings
of the people of England were in favour of a change
in the law.

Mr. M. MILNES contended that large classes of the
people were anxious for the alteration of the law ; and
that the alteration would not interfere with the con-
scientious convictions of those who took a different view
of the question.

dispute as to the law up to that time, children should '
not be illegitimised by any consequence resulting from
those marriages, when the Legislature itself was pressed
to alter the law. But it had always been considered by
legal authorities in this and the other house that, instead
,tthat act declaring what the law of God was in this
country, it left to the ecclesiastical courts the powers of
punishing the parties who contracted such marriages,
although it legitimised the children. The noble viscount's
second reason for supporting the introduction of the bill
was, that the law was disobeyed, and could not be en-
forced ';
that it could not be maintained because it was
inconsistent with the public opinion and feeling of the
country. Now did the noble viscount, sitting in the
high place which he oecupied, seriously consider the
consequences of that proposition ? Did he bear in mind
that, according to the report, there were numbers of mar-
riages contracted with brothers' widows, with a mother
and daughter in succession and even, he deplored to say,
leading to morally incestuous intercourse ? If once we
were to admit the doctrine that, because parties had vio-
lated the law of the land, which he believed also to be
the law of God, therefore the law must be altered, be
said there was nothing whitever to keep the bonds of
society together. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He could
not refrain from entering his pi otsbt against such a doc-
trine, and he would urge on the noble viscount, not pursu-
ing the subject further, to consider the effect it would have
on the country if this question of marriage--the most
solemn, the most sacred, and most interesting that could
be conceived to the whole community, should be con-
stantly ventilated in Parliament, and agitated out of
doors, contrary to the feelings of the people both of
Scotland and Ireland, as they had been told, contrary
to the feelings also of a large, if not the largest portion,
of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) • The effect
of a change in the law would be to introduce a state of
social relations entirely different to any heretofore exist-
ing in this country, so that instead of the husband and
wife's sister being able to enjoy each other's society with-
out a shadow of suspicion or scandal being cast on their
intercourse; because the husband felt that there was a
moral bar existing, which prevented an immoral thought
from arising in his mind, the parties would stand to each
other in the relation of aliens and strangers.
Mr. G. H. MOORE stated, in opposition to Mr.
Bowyer, that the feelings of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation were unanimously and strongly opposed to any
alteration of the law.

Mr. COBDEN contended that the opponents of this
motion had allowed their case to go by default. He
knew of his own knowledge many persons of the highest
respectability who had "gone to Germany and married
their deceased wife's sister, and then returned and lived
in this country without losing caste. This was a proof
of the evasion of the law and an argument for its altera-
tion.

Mr. HEY%VOOD replied, after which the house di-
vided.
For the bill B7
Against it
Majority for the bill
EDUCATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN IN

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE contended that Mr. Bowyer
had been guilty of a transparent fallacy in his argument
that the common law of England did not forbid marriage
with a deceased wife's sister. The truth was that the
common law took no cognisance of the law of marriage
at all, but left that whole question to the decision of the
statute law. He was opposed to the introduction of the
bill ; and he found in the restrictions contained in its
provisions sufficient reasons for its rejection.
Mr. SPOONER would vote for the introduction of
the bill, without pledging himself to its details. He did
so because he considered the present state of the law was
fraught with the most immoral conseqUences among the
lower classes. The only justification of the present law
would be that it was in accordance with the Divine law ;
and as be did not believe that such was the case, he was
for the alteration of the law. At the same time he was
opposed to the marriage of a wife's niece, and, to the ex-
emption of Scotland from the operation of the measure.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND contended that the prohibition
of these marriages was of Divine authority, and that the
Church never had a doubt on the subject till the fourth
century, when the Pope introduced the question of dis-
pensation. He objected to this as a sneaking, half-and-
half measure • he called upon the hon. mover to deal
openly with the question—to get rid of all questions of
affinity, and "marry your grandmother like a man."
Admiral WALCOTT believed that . the change now
proposed would unhinge society, the` Nord of God hav-
ing pronounced against such marriages, and must there-
fore oppose the motion.
Viscount PALMERSTON—Sir, I wish to state that,
having paid great attention to this debate, I shall cer-
tainly give my vote in favour of the motion of my hon.
friend. (Hear, hear.) I think that this is not a ques-
tion of the law of God. I hold that Parliamenb has
settled that by the Act of 1835, for of course it can
never be supposed that Parliament would have legalised
all marriages which up to that period had been pro-
scribed, if Parliament had been of opinion , that there
was such a fundamental objection to those: marriages.
(Hear, hear.) It certainly appears to me that this case
is one to which you may apply the quotation, "Nil pro-
sunt Ines sine moribus"—that is to say, that laws are of
no avail if the moral feeling of the country does not go
in unison with the law. Now, it seems to be established
and admitted that the moral feeling of the community
at large is not with this law—that the laW, in fact, is
not obeyed, and that a great number of persons, not con-
ceiving themselves to commit any moral offence, do con-
tract marriages which the law prohibits. (Bear.) That
is not a state of things which ought to exist, ar.d, not
being of opinion that there is any moral objection to the
contracting of these marriages, and, believing that the
law as it stands is the cause of a great deal of misery and
social evil, especially among the middle and lower classes
of the community, I shall with gr,:at plea .ure give my
vote for the motion. (Wear, hear.)
Mr.WALPOLE said the noble viscount's main reason
for supporting the motion seemed to consist in the act of
1835. This was the firA time lie had heard from his
noble friend that the-law of Parliament could determine
what was the law of God.

Viscount PALMERSTON—I did not say that the act
of Parliammt could determine that; Isaid the act showed
what Parliament conceived it to be.
Mr. WALPOLE hoped the noble viscount would not
object to be set right as to what the act of Parliament
was intended to do. The act made no marriages legal
it simply raid that those marriages which hal(' been con-
tracted should not be voided in the parties lifetime ; in
other words, all it saicl'was that those marriages should
be placed on the same footing as marriages before that
act were placed,. if either of the parties were dead. It
did so in order that, there having been a difference and

NVIII iNrb_LAY EVENING, MARCH l4l im,

TEE LONDON GAZETTE or LAST N 10.711%

WHITEHALL, MARCH 13.

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to
be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, constituting and appointing
the Right Honourable Sir Charles Wood, Bart. ; Rear-
Admiral Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley, C.B. ;
Rear-Admiral Henry Eden ; Captain Peter Richards,
C.B. ; Captain Alexander Milne ; and Sir Robert Peel,
Bart. ;—to be her Majesty's Commissioners for executing
the office of Lord High Admiral of the said United King-
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Dominions,
Islands, and Territories thereunto belonging.

CROWN-OFFICE, MARCH 13.

MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT PARLIA-

MENT.

Borough of Athlone.—William Keogh, Esq., her Ma-
jesty's Attorney-General for Ireland.
Borough of Dudley.—Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, of
Pynes, in the county of Devon, Bart., in the room of John
Benbow, Esq., deceased.
County of Forfar.--Adam Duncan Haldane (commonly
called Viscount Duncan), one of the Lords Commissioners
of the Treasury.

Burghs of Montrose.—William Edward Baxter, Esq.,
merchant, Dundee, iu the room of Joseph Hume, Esq.,
deceased.

Borough of Ennis.—John David Fitz Gerald, Esq., her
Majesty's Solicitor-General for Ireland.
Borough cf.Barnstaple.—George Stileley Buck, of Hart-
-I:nd Abbey, Esq., in the room of John Lawrie, E4q.,
whose election for the said borough has been declared void.
ST. JAMES'S PALACE, MARCH 10.

The Queen has been pleased, on the nomination of the
Right Honourable Lord Foley, to appoint William Agnew
Pope, Esq., one of her Majesty's Honourable Corps of
Gentlemen-At-Arms, vice Pyrke, retired.
BOARD OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, MARCH 12.
_ _

The Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of
Privy Council for Trade and Plantations have received,
through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copy of
a despatch from her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China,
reporting that the local authorities at Amoy have granted
to ships under the British flag the right to carry on the
coasting trade. from that port to the various ports in China.
BOARD OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, MARCH 13.
The Right Iron. the Lords of the Committee of Privy
Council for Trade and Plantations have received a despatch
from her Majesty's Consul at New York, enclosing two
Notices to Mariners issued by the United States Light-
house Board, copies of which are subjoined.
(Copy-)
NOTICE TO MARINERS.

Lighthouse at Tucker's Beach, Little Egg Harbour, N.J.
On or about the first clay of June next (1855), a fixed
white light, varied by flashes, of the fourth order of the
system of Fresnel, will be substituted for the present fixed
red light at Tucker's Beach Lighthouse, near the entrance
to Little Egg Harbour, N.J.
The light will be exhibited at an elevation of 50 feet
above the level of the sea; will illuminate the entire sea
horizon and the approaches to Little Egg Harbour, and
should be seen, under ordinary states of the atmosphere,
from a height of 15 feet above the water, at a distance of
12)2 nautical, or 14i statute miles.
The tower is white.

The approximate position is—
Latitude, 39 deg. 30 min. 17 sec. N.
Longitude, 74 deg. 16 min. 4S sec. W.
Due public notice will be given of the day upon which
the change will be made.
By order of the Lighthouse Board.
(Signed) JAMES S. BIDDLE,
L. H. Inspector, Fourth District.
Philadelphia, Feb. 7, 1855.