The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-20 00:00:00

Act of 1835; an objection due not to the noble

statesman who was the author of the Act,

but to the persecuting interference of the
late Bishop of London. The discreditable fact

stands on record, that one English peer purchased

an incontestible title to legitimacy at the cost of

punishing all born of marriages similar to that

from which he sprung, with illegitimacy. It would

have been more to the credit of the noble family
referred to, had they refused the demand of the
High Church persecutor, rather than fetter future
generations for the sake of the present one.
The objectors to such marriages range chiefly
under two heads—the sexual sentimentalists, as we

may term them, and the stiff Churchmen. As to
the former, we do not doubt that they argue from

experience. To them the temptation to intrigue
with a wife's sister has been so strong that they
feel the need of legal walls to check their tenden-
cies. We doubt not that those who talk of incest,
and impurity, and who attribute to wives' sisters
imaginations only to be found in the:minds of the
wives' husbands, have but too good personal rea-
sons for what they write or speak. But they have
their remedy. Better far that the few, as they
unquestionably are, should keep their wives' sisters
at a distance from their dwelling where such thoughts
can dwell in a husband's mind, than that the innu-
merable husbands who never dream of such temp.
tation, because they never felt it, should be deprived
of their rightful liberty. We hope the sexual

sentimentalists are consistent, and that they admit
to their houses no attractive cousins-german, or
even no accomplished governess as the teacher of
their children. If they are as fond of logic as Lord
CECIL, they ought to apply for an act to prevent
any widower from marrying a lady who has visited
or dwelt in his house during his wife's lifetime.
With the stiff Churchmen generally, it is im-
possible to argue, They have such a conception
of enforcing the dicta of the Church by the laws
of the State that, till they have got rid of their
fundamental error, it is hopeless to convince them
in a particular case. The spirit of the age modifies
their practical course, but their temper would carry
them on to any extent of coercing the body for the
good of the soul. As they cannot create new civil
penalties in the service of superstition, they console
themselves by doggedly resisting to the very last
the repeal of the old ones. All stiff Churchmen are
not, however, Exeters or Oxfords ; there are
amongst them a large proportion whose hearts
are in advance of their heads. Who have
the English love of religious as well as of
civil liberty so strong in them, that it
overpowers the persecuting temper of their
creed. Amongst these we venture to hope for suffi-
cient converts, even among the Lords, to permit
this Bill to become the law of the land this year.
They, at least, along with very strong convictions,
perhaps prejudices, in favour of the canons, com-
paratively modern as they are, of the Church, can
also strongly feel that it is not for them to make
their Church odious by forcing its canons oa those
who belong to other Churches, or who reject her
authority in this matter.
But what shall we say to Lord LOGIC, as he
will certainly be styled henceforth—the answer,
ad horninetn, or ad do minum, is short enough—that
the Legislation of Lords is essentially the most
illogical thing in the world. We say essentially.
We do not believe that either the House of Lords
or Commons cares, or ever did care, one straw
for logical consistency. Close logic on the bearing
of facts on practical life Parliament will hear,
but it laughs at the attempt to legislate logically.
" Show a grievance and we will listen ; if made
out we will redress it." Such is the
language of our legislators. It would
be far more reasonable to ask Lord
R. CECIL to make his tables of affinity and consan-
guinity logically consistent, than to ask an English
member of Parliament to include in his demand for
redress, grievances for the removal of which no one
petitioned. The grievance attacked by Mr. MILNE'S
bill, is one which has been felt severely by thousands
ever since 1835, and for the removal of which con-
siderably more than a million of persons have
petitioned. When the Logical Lord can show such
a case in favour of "permitting a man to marry his
stepmother," we may certaintly promise him the
most serious attention. We suppose, hewever, the
noble lord's self-refutation is sufficient, since he had
the candour to acknowledge that, in founding a
new State, he should not think of such a prohibi-
tion—but that he was unwilling to disturb existing
law. A kind of ELDON argument, which surely
needs not refutation in 1862.
On one remark made by Sir GEORGE GREY, and
supported by Mr. WALPOLE, we could almost wish
Mr. MILNES had given some assurance. The Home
Secretary deprecated the annual agitation of the
question. If Parliament refused the bill, Sir
GEORGE wished it dropped ! Is such a course pos-
sible ? Can a real grievance be buried out of
sight? We are confident it cannot. When so
many members of the House of Commons
have repeatedly voted the redress of a substantial
grievance, is it possible that an obstinate small
majority of the irresponsible House should
deter the aggrieved from pressing their claims ? It
should be remembered, too, that this is a question
on which the House of Lords is especially disquali-
fied to decide. It is a question very much of the
religious liberty of Christian Churches who have
no representatives in that House, while the
Church which desires to over-ride the liberties
of the rest has its representatives there. By one
of those representatives the late Bishop of
LONDON, the clause which restricts the liberty of
all other churches was forced upon Lord LYND-
HURST'S Bill, and Sir GEORGE GREY may rest
assured that the Free Churches of England will
never give up their Parliamentary efforts till they
regain the liberty which they formerly, practically,
enjoyed. And, we may add, that a majority, pro-
bably, of the Episcopal Church itself desires the same
liberty of marriage as is asked by all the other
churches of the empire.

While we are yet looking back, here in Eng-
land, with natural complacency to the great legal
reform accomplished by the Imperial Legislature
last session, namel/, the re-adjustment and re-orga-
nisation of the whole of the Laws relating to Bank-
ruptcy and Insolvency—it cannot but appear to us
as in everyway reasonable, that that selfsame boon
should be accorded, before the close of the present
session, to Ireland. In point of fact, a bill designed
to effect this very object is already prepared, and is
about forthwith to be introduced into, and as a
matter of course, to be carried through both
Houses of Parliament. The Bankruptcy Laws of
Ireland will consequently, through the agency of
this judicious enactment, be assimilated to those
\ now enforced in England under the act 24 and 25
v
the icT.
Cap. 134. The assimilation in this way of
Bankruptcy
Laws of England and of Ireland
is in all essential
particulars, we believe, de-
signed through
this supplementary measure
(extending the boon of last session to our
Irish compatriots
on the other side of St. George's
Channel) to be Complete and absolute. The two
systems are to be all but identical. It is but just,
it is but rational, indeed, that it should be so. Yet
already, while there are these fair prospects held out