The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-16 00:00:00

artiolea of great importance war° constantly com-
ing into Balaklava, and as constantly sent back

again, and " kept running backwards and for-
wards between the different ports."
But why multiply instances?? Why repeat
the numerous cases of mismanagement ? Suffi-
cient has been established (even -without re-
ferring to the weakness of the position selected,
which was, in fact, in one part incapable of de-
fence, and which entailed almost superhuman
labour on our men) to prove the inefficiency of
Lord RAGLAN.. Why, then, we ask—and the
country will repeat the interrogatory—was he
ever appointed ? Was it because he was the
younger son of a Duke, or that he had, fur
thirty-nine years, been at home, without the op-
portunity of seeing any description of military
service ? It is, indeed, difficult to account for his
nomination on any rational principle, and equally
hard to explain his continuance in the command.
Is it to Lord HARDINGeS3 or to any hidden,
although potent, influence that lie has been
retained ? The nation demands a clear and
explicit answer to this simple interrogatory. It
must be returned. The Premier, the War Minis-
ter, and indeed every member of the Cabinet, is
responsible for the evils that have arisen,
and may hereafter in consequence of the
injudicious appointment. Let any of them
attempt to show what lie has done to
exempt him from the censure he has merited for
his numerous acts of omission. As yet we are
ignorant of any defence that can be put forward.
Should any be attempted we shall hear it impar-
tially, but we fear that it cannot alter the im-
pressions arrived at, not without regret or without
due deliberation.

We earnestly hope that the Marriage Law
Amendment Bill, introduced on Tuesday evening,
and to which we alluded in our impression of yes-
terday, may receive the fair and impartial consi-
deration which its importance so imperatively
demands. The House of Commons has repeatedly
sanctioned the principle of the measure—has de-
cided that the last and one of the most vexatious
infringements of the civil and religious liberty of
the subject should be obliterated from the national
statute-book. But hitherto in vain. Prejudice
and bigotry has still prevailed ; and a law which,
not being respected, is frequently disregarded,
and that by " persons of religious and moral
character "—" exemplary members of society"—
is retained iu all its virulence. Point after point
has been abandoned by the opponents of the mea-
sure. They no longer venture to assert that there
is any divine prohibition against such marriages.
The ridiculous argument founded on the 18th
Leviticus, and which clearly affected such marriages
only during the lifetime of the first wife, has been
given up. It is only surprising that one so weak
and futile, which rendered the opposite view of
the case perfectly irresistible, should ever have
been put forward. It is therefore now confessedly
only on the grounds of " inconvenience" and of
ecclesiasti;al authority that such marriages can be
interfered with.

Now, on the first point, the preponderance of
testimony—the "weight of evidence"—is alto-
gether in favour of these connexions. We know
that in other countries where they are recognised
and sanctioned—that is to say, in every Protestant
country in Europe and America—they are looked
on as peculiarly eligible, as affording the best
prospects for the •rphans who, deprived of a
mother's care, must be placed under female pro-
tection of some kind. Aud naturally so, for
surely a mother's sister, one previously attched
to the children, would be more likely treat
them with tender consideration than a perfect
stranger, who would regard them solely as the
rivals of her own offspring, and treat them with
the proverbial harshness of a stepmother.
Besides, ou the question of inconvenience we
must consider the effect produced by beholding
many inestimable persons deliberately disregarding
the law of the land, and retaining their position
in society, and reputations unblemished and un-
assailed. If public opinion were iu favour of the
obnoxious law such could not be the case. It is,
therefore, manifest that the moral feeling of the
community is opposed to the restriction, and the
only victims whereof are the innocent children,
who, without any fault of their own, might pos-
sibly be deprived of their birth-rights—the inheri
tances that should have descended from their
ancestors.

The only obstacle is a canon of doubtful autho-
rity, which a large proportion of the members of
the Established Church, clerical and lay, repudiate.
Why, we ask, should the consciences of Dissenters
be bound by such a regulation ? The days of
penal laws and tests have long since been abolished.
A. man Gan no longer be persecuted for conscience
sake. Nor can he be mulcted in heavy penalties
because he does not choose to attend public wor-
ship in the Parish church. We profess to extend
the most perfect toleration to all shades and
varieties of religious opinions, and yet the law
restricts a person on the tenderest and dearest
point, in a matter on which the happiness of his life
may depend, because, forsooth, some members of
the Church of England consider it contrary to
one of the tenets of their Church !

Their position cannot be in any degree compro-
mised by the alteration. They will not be re-
quired to marry the sister of a deceased wife be-
' cause they might be at liberty to do so if they
think proper. They are subjected to no compul-
sion ; but they should be prepared to accord to
others the perfect freedom of opinion which
they claim for themselves. Let then every friend
of civil and religious liberty exert himself at this
emergency to strike off these remaining shackles.
The chief difficulty to be encountered is the apathy
and indifference of many who, although they
think the alteration proper, do not think it ne-
cessary to exert themselves respecting a matter in
which they do not feel themselves to be personally
concerned. Let them be aroused from their
apathy, and called on to vote one way or the
other, and we venture to assert that the obnoxious
law would be repealed by a decided and over-
whelming majority. A little exertion now will
remove a blot on the national escutcheon, and
remedy a grievance which presses severely on a
numerous, influential, and meritorious body of
persons.

Ladies
have their foibles, divines their failings-
phl
osopbers their weaknesses, Members of Parlia-
ment their moments of faith in themselves, why
then should we deny
to railway shareholders pec-
culilloes of their own ? and why, above
them the privileges to which everybody deny
ia)!s
eiaita ((Jr at all events exereises), that of being
! angry !! Do it who may, we who are free-traders
in commercial matters will not countenance such
a measure of restriction in morals : the farthest
tee can go is to suggest that shareholders should
not be angry without cause, nor bo blindly angry,
and when they have cause, shall not be more angry
than the occasion warrants. This we take to be
rcaionable and praiseworthy.
The half-yearly meeting of the South-Eastern
Railway Company, which took plane yesterday
at the Bridge Hotel, London, was, it appears,