The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-12 00:00:00

The manifest objection visible upon the
very surface of the motion brought forward
yesterday by the member for Brighton is
this—that it would interfere with that prero-
gative of free speaking which the House of Com-
mons itself guards the most jealously. True,
there is much to be desiderated in the way
of economising the time of the house, in the way of
regulating more systematically the business of the
session, in the way (above all things) of rendering
the consideration of the Estimates more and more
matter of certainty and of deliberation. But while
striving to attain this triple advantage, the House
of Commons must guard against the danger of
depriving itself even partially of one of its most

cherished privileges, that of discussing always—
upon these very evenings—every subject in the
wide world that any M.P. out of the six hundred
and odd may choose to bring under the scrutiny of
the popular branch of the Legislature: It is the
reconciliation of these two hitherto somewhat con-

flitting difficulties that the member for Brighton,
laudably enough, bat vainly enough, as
the result showed, strove once more yes-

terday to effect by means of his well-inten-
tioned, but abortive proposition. Let us

yet hope that something more practical and
Tore to the purpose to that end may come of the

Secretary of State's reconsideration of the same

old, old, tedious, hitherto insoluble problem—How

:o economize the time in the Hoase of Commons

without interfering with the perfect freedom of dis•

cussion, how to regulate with more certainty

during the session the consideration of the estimates

Without depriving members generally of their long•

,reasured privilege of desultory motions upon going

into Committee of Supply !

Mr. MONCICTON MILNES has obtained leave to
bring in once more the bill to render legal certain
marriages of affinity. What marriages these are,
thanks to the customary ecclesiastical perversity of
certain lords, our readers but too well know. May
we hope that this year, which Lord DERBY has de-
dicated to political peace, will also be one of political
concession on a question whicb, at the bottom, is
neither more nor less than one of religious liberty.
Though our opinions of the religious aspect of the
case cannot well be clearer, we confess we are tired
of the theological discussion. Such discussions are
as inappropriate to a daily paper as they are to Par-
liament itself, and we must, except when driven to
them by any peculiar necessity, utterly decline them.
We have only to do with the broad facts of the case,
which involve the equal religious liberties of all
subjects, and in defence of them our best efforts
will never be wanting. We are strenuously in
favour of Mr. MILNES' bill, because we think it as
essential to complete religious liberty in regard to
marriage, as was the modification of the oath re-
quired of members of Parliament, to the complete I
political liberty of Jews.

In one respect the two questions stand in a very
similar position. The appeal is not to any exten-
sive agitation which can be got up out of doors, nor
is it made on behalf, so far as the individuals
directly affected are concerned, of large numbers—
the appeal is on behalf of a considerable number
practically -wronged; on behalf of, we believe, a
majority of the nation, wronged by unjust treat-

ment of their religions opinions; and it is
made not to any party or political feel-
ing, but to the sense of right and justice in the
bosom of our Legislators. This appeal triumphed,
at last, in the case of the Jews ; is it too much to
hope that it will triumph in the case of the vast

numbers who believe the marriages in question to
be lawful and right—of the important number whom
the late decision of the Hcnse of Lords has placed
in a peculiarly painful legal, not social, position—
and of the considerable number who are debarred by
fear of legal consequences from acting on inclina-
tions which they are certain enjoy the sanction of
religion, of reason, and of prudence.
As journalists for the public we place in the
fore
front of our argument that, in regard to these
marriages, there is a pronounced difference of reli-
gious °Pinion. We have nothing, properly, to do
with the grounds
of those opinions; they are the
concern of individuals.
Our business, like that of
the statesman, is to see to it that, so far as in us lies,
no man is damaged in his civil relations on account
of his religious opinions. This must be the case
are made the foun-
Uament, and those
when the opinions of one class
of laws ond Acts of Parliament,
of the opposed class visited by civil disabilities; or

when the majority of these all-essential " forty"
perhaps are drowsed long since under the soporific
influence of all kinds of tedious discussions. How
often has it not come to pass, for example, that the
expenditure of some great and vital department
of the Government has been smuggled through
the House while almost every one has
been away at dinner—certain that the matter
in question would not come on for two or three
hours afterwards. Superficially considered, there-
fore, it must be obvious remembering the facts we
have been recalling to recollection that there was
something alluring in the root-idea of Mr. WarrE's
motion yesterday. By getting rid of the uncer-
tainty there has hitherto been in regard to
the consideration of the estimates two nights a week
during the session until they are gradually worked
through with more or less regularity and precision ;
by getting rid of this uncertainty, and exchanging
the two dubious nights a week for one night that
should be devoted to the consideration of the esti-
mates with certainty and exclusively, the mem-
ber for Brighton would seem doubtless, to our ob-
servant eyes, to have hit upon the juste milieu, and
for once to have deserved well of the house, if not of
his country. But—alas! when the motion comes to be
placed in the crucible of debate all the vapoury
good in it begins to evaporate, and there is a residue
of doubt left at last that is quietly set aside for
possible consideration afterwards, and that moreover
not by the House collectively, but by the individual
Minister of State who may be regarded
as in some measure responsible for the
proper guidance of the house to a wise
decision in this particular. Observe, for a mo-
ment, the course taken by the discussion yesterday in
regard to the suggestion of the member for Brighton.
Mr. WHITE'S ingenious proposition is seconded by
the member for Dumfries ; and thereupon the House
is nominally addressed, not merely by subordinate
members, like Mr. PAULL, Mr. WILLIAms,
and Mr. BAILLIE, but by Ministers and
ex-Ministers as important as Sir GEORGE GREY
and Sir GEORGE LEWIS, as Mr. WALPOLE, Mr.
DISRAELI, and Lord PALMERSTON. The upshot of
it all being that the motion—when all has been
said—is withdrawn. The House of Commons, and
the public who look to the House of Commons for
its usual half-year's labour in the way of legis-
lation, must now alike wait as patiently as
may be for the suggestion half promised last
evening by the right hon. baronet the Secretary of
State for the Home Department—the well-consi-
dered and duly-deliberated official proposition Sir
GEORGE GREY may, upon reflection, feel encouraged
to submit to the consideration of the House, for the
better economy of the public time in future, and the
more careful regulation, and the more judicious
organisation of the whole scheme of Public
Business.