The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-10 00:00:00

, borne in mind, that Sir EDWARD LYTTON'S final
selection as representative of the SOVEREIGN out
at Corfu, to wit, General Sir HENRY STORKS, has
remained in power tbere uninterruptedly. His
soldierly and vigorous hand has ever since grasped
firmly enough the reins of constitutional govern-
: ment. Weakness in the Lord Commissioner, whom-
soever he might have been, civilian or military, could
have been nothing less than fatal to the peace of the
lonian Archipelago. There among the leng-irritated
population of these islands may be found any
day all the inflammable elements of an in-
subordination, in a revolutionary epoch.
All that is wanting there to bring the
fact that it is so, vividly to light, is the accidental
dropping of the spark of an opportunity. The
best of opportunities, in this way, for the would-
be insurgents, must manifestly be the evidence
on the part of the one there supreme in command, of
the very weakness of which we have spoken. That
weakness, at any rate, Sir HENRY STORKS would
be about the last man in the service of the
Crown to show. His conduct has proved this
distinctly ever since he has been in authority.
His policy has, from first to last, been firm
though conciliatory. He has made, as yet, not
one weak concession. Nor is there any indica-
tion, as yet, that he has the smallest intention
of doing anything of the kind. At the same
time he has never evinced a reluctance to listen
to anyone and everyone coming before him
in that character, which may be said to be
in a manner übiquitous among the lonians, the
character of a man with a grievance. Hitherto
the tranquillity of the Archipelago under this judi-
cious military-constitutional regime has been in no
way disturbed. But now that insurrectionary
movements are beginning to agitate anew the neigh-
bouring kingdom of Greece, it is as well, perhaps,
all things considered, that the public and the Par-
liament here at home amongst ourselves should at
length be placed au courant in regard to the diplo-
matic sayings and doings of Mr. GLADSTONE three
years since in his eccentric, and grandiose, and, as
it unhappily proved in the end, utterly abortive
capacity as the Lord High Commissioner Extraor-
dinary. It has been advisable until now that in
regard to those sayings and doings of the now
once more Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Colonial
Office should observe a discreet and rigid reticence.
No good coald obviously have come, hitherto, from
the ventilation of the subject, either within or
without the walls of the Legislature. For in
regard to this still dormant lonian difficulty, this
still pending anxiety at Corfu, this still unsolved
though yet we believe perfectly soluble problem of
that classic archipelago—so long as the public
peace can be preserved there under Sir HENRY
STORKS' authority, it would obviously be advisable
above all things to leave well alone. It is true,
we can still rejoice to know for an absolute cer-
tainty, that the peace of the lonian Islands yet
remains wholly undisturbed—Sir HARRY STORKS
Still presiding there at Corfu over the Constitu-
tional Government, in his delicate and difficult
character as Lord High Commissioner. But, if the
flame of insurrection is in no way kindled at Corfu,
at Zante, or at Cephalonia—an armed rebellion
has lit once more the beacon of civil war
upon the neighbouring coasts of the Kingdom
of Greece. And it at last became obvious, even
to the slowly moving Official Mind, that silence
had best be broken at length, without any fur-
ther delay, in regard to Mr. GLADSTONE'S memo-
rable and mysterious negotiations. Hence the
issue now, and only now, three years " after
date," of the diplomatic correspondence penned—
here in Downing-street by Sir BULWER LYTTON,
yonder at Corfu by Mr. GLADSTONE—in reference
to the hopes, and fears, and deep heart-cherished
and, alas! also, many of them fierce heart-
burning aspirations of the lonian multitude.
Among all the Bluebooks that have for a
long while past been dropping heavily
with a ponderous and alarming sumph upon
the tables of the Lords and Commons,
cf private members, and of Journalists, from the
hands of the messengers from the Government
printing-office, this newly-published tome, contain-
ing the correspondence here referred to, will be
found in every respect to be among the most read-
able and interesting in its whole character. It is
a correspondence remarkable at once for its states-
man-like lucidity and for its scholarly eloquence.
Nor can this be matter in any way of surprise, when
the genius of the two men who principally con-
ducted the negotiations, the one in his supreme
capacity as Secretary of State and Minister of the
Crown, the other in kis exquisitely respon-
sible capacity as a plenipotentiary, if the exact
phrase be preferred, as Lord High Commissioner
extraordinary, is borne for an instant in recollec-
tion. The Imperial Legislature, We doubt not, will,
before long, afford as ample opportunity for examin
ing, and analysing, and collating the lonian Blue-
book, containing within its luminous pages this
masterly interchange of ideas between BULWER and
GLADSTONE upon a theme peculiarly suited to their
high capacities. For the present, we content ourselves
with simply noticing, with satisfaction, the circum-
stance of its publication—a publication, as we have
not failed to note upon the instant, singularly
tardy, but also, we cannot but repeat, just at this
moment, singularly opportune.

It can be no secret that the fate of the Mar-
riage Bill, this session, lies in the hands of Lord
DERBY. In the Houses of Parliament the subject
has been fully argued out, little, if anything more,
can be urged on either side, and the question is
now, simply, when will the Conservative leaders
consent. If the party in favour of repealing the
existing law put forth their full strength, they
could probably always carry the Bill in the Com-
mons by larger or smaller majorities; but as cer-
tainly, the leader of the Opposition in the Lords
could as regularly procure its rejection' there. His
consent that it should pass, this year, or any
year,:would settle the question in the only way in
which it can be ultimately settled. We do not,
therefore, make too much of an individual, if we
appeal to Lord DERBY as the statesman with whom
the settlement of this question now rests. We
appeal to him as a constitutional statesman only;
not as a theologian, nor even as a moralist.
We have only to deal with the question—will it
not be wise for the leader of the Opposition to allow
this bill to pass? Lord DERBY knows that the
Sun has not been a party journal. Oar motto
has always been the old one of measures, not men.
We have as often and as heartily supported him,
therefore, as his opponents; hence we may ask his
candid consideration to a few general observations
on the practical position of the subject.
And, first, as we have been earnest supporters
of the liberty claimed by Mr. MILNES' Bill,
hiB lordship will know that we are likely
to be better aware than he is of the
determination
assure of its promoters. We may
him, then, that there is not the
slightest hope
that Sir GEORGE GREY'S wish
for the cessation
of future agitation, should
the bill be rejected this
retty
session, will be fulfilled. On
the contrary it is certain to increase. English con-
ghtened already. We
stituencies are p well enli
have little doubt that four acorn
out of every bun-

dred Englishmen, and English women too, would
sign a petition for the bill, were it presented
to them. Already the signatures for the Bill are
seven or eight times as many as those against it-
-1,095,814 against 142,137. But in accordance with
the vote of last session, Scotland and Ireland are
now included in the bill, and it is resolved, if neces-
sary, to enlighten those countries on the subject,
the leading Catholic and Presbyterian divines hav-
ing already given a favourable opinion. We are con-
fident that agitation on the subject will only be ex-
tended and intensified by prolonged refusal of the
demand; and therefore, whether its agitation be
an evil or a good, it is certain that it can
be stopped by concession only. The remark is
by no means intended as a threat. It is brought
forward simply as a fact, because it is with facts
that the statesman has to do.

There is one circumstance connected with the
demand for liberty to marry a deceased wife's sis-
ter, which, to some extent, excuses the ignorance
of many of our aristocracy as to the real state of
national opinion respecting it. It is this, that while
considerable numbers of the aristocracy have been
favourable to permission of such marriages, the pre-
judice, or the sentiment, or the religious opinion
unfavourable to them, is chiefly confined to the
aristocracy, and to persons much under the influ-
ence of the clergy of the Church by whose canon
law they are prohibited. To this we attribute the
hesitation of Lord DERBY and others to
admit the fact that English women as
well as English men, are favourable to a change of
the law. Though the present state of the law is
entirely due to the effort to place beyond attack
the legitimacy of a noble Duke, yet, on the
whole, members of the House of Peers and
their very numerous connections in the
House of Commons, would probably hear from the
females of the circles in which they move, that
women are averse from such marriages. In that
circle they are in fact unfashionable, or objected
to from sentiments formed on clerical dicta. But
had his lordship the knowledge which we neces-
sarily have of all grades of the middle classes, be
would be aware that with them feminine objections
to the liberty asked are as rare as those of the other
sex, while with the poor objection is unknown ;
no attention whatever is paid by them to a prohibi-
tion which to their perceptions appears simply
absurd.

Even among Church people of the middle and
humbler classes the vast majority acknowledge no
moral or religious obligation in the prohibition, and
under circumstances strongly tempting them to
hazard the legal consequences of the Act of 1835
would certainly do so. But to these must be added
the vast body of Nonconformists of every sect, who
constitute so large, so religious, and so moral a por-
tion of the middle and poorer classes. Their churches
and religious teachers may be said to be unanimous
in favour of the right claimed. Hence the position
of the question to the Statesman's view, must, it
would seem, be this. First, practically speaking,
these marriages were not prohibited till 1835.
Next, ever since then, the prohibition has been
evaded, it was supposed till lately, legally, by
marriage abroad, in the case of those who could
afford it, and in the case of those who could not
by marriage at home, the facilities being so great
for escaping notice. Again, ever since the act of
1835, there has been unceasing agitation to
procure for all who desire it the rights con-
ferred on his grace the Duke of BEAUFORT, and
numerous others, by that act, but by a perverse
inconsistency refused to all similar cases in future.
It turns out that those whom it concerns will not
patiently submit to a line drawn so harshly, so
wholly without reasor, in favour of one set of
persons, and to the prejudice of all others. If it be
alleged that the new law ought to have taught the
complainants better, the latter show, partly by their
marriages, and very numerously by their petitions,
that it is vain to oppose an artificial prohibition
to what is felt to be a natural sentiment and right.
We would appeal to Lord DERBY'S unprejudiced
judgment, whether the bill of Mr. MILNES would
not leave the national practice very much where it
is; the advantage being that unequal penalties
would not be incurred by those who do not think
the law of 1835 on such a subject binding on them.
The majority of the upper classes, deterred by
the fashion or the sentiment of their 'class,
would rarely violate it. The habits of their
circle and the canons of their Church would be
their law. The great majority of the middle class,
Dissenters with hardly an exception, would act
more freely on their known belief, and would be
released from what they all regard as an infraction
of their religious liberty. As to the allegation of
its operation as a check on the visits of aunts to
the homes of their sisters, this would not be the
case where the habits of the circle were
opposed to such marriages, because there a law
stronger than that of 1835 would be in force; and,
if law be requisite, this would be law enough. But
the fact is that the women of England need no such
law to preserve them from unworthy sentiments.
It were a libel on them to think so ; and we appeal
to Lord DEB.I3Y whether our own sex is so depraved
that we need such a law to guard the purities of
home during an aunt's visits to our house. It is
quite certain that before 1835, the association of
husbands' wives, and wives' sisters, under the same
roof was as chaste, yet as affectionate as it now

We will not do Lord DERBY the injustice to
suppose that he would be seriously influenced by
party considerations. We know, however, that,
like other statesmen, he cannot afford to overlook
them altogether. At first sight it might appear as
if the more active ecclesiastics among his party
would be displeased with him for giving way to
what has become almost a national demand. Not one
of them, however, would forsake or even distrust
him on that account. He could so easily show them
that as a matter of Statesmanship the time had
come to concede to all sects, and individuals the
right they demanded; that no one was compelled
to do what he deemed wrong ; no clergyman to
marry those-who, as he thought, ought not to be
married ; that the canons of the Church could not be
fairly made the basis of civil legislation for a na-
tion of such divers sects and creeds, and that there-
fore, without the Legislature even doing a little
wrong, it would enable thousands, without
penalty, to do what they deemed greatly
right. On the other hand, while from the merely
party point of view Lord DERBY would suffer no
injury, he would do away with a sense of injury on
the part of at least all the Dissenting Churches of
the land, as well as on that of the majority of his
own Church. We dislike to mention party conside-
rations in such a matter, and would not, were they not
introduced by others. We dismiss, therefore, the
topic with the expression of our opinion, that if
Lord DERBY saw fit to give way this year, he
would not lose a single supporter, while he would
conciliate very general good-will.

OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS.—Mr. W. C. Sar-
geaunt, of the Colonial .office, has been appointed one of the
Agents-General for Crown Colonies, is the room of Mr. E.
Barnard, deceased. By the Colonial Qffice List, lately pub-
lished, we observe that Mr. Sargeaunt entered the Colonial-
office in 1848, vT4 Colonial Secretary at Natal 1853 to
1858, and administered the government of the Island of St.
Vincent 1869-60. ?Ir. Loftus Hughes has been appointed
a Clerk the Ferelgll-eface.—Obeerver.