The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-31 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1854.

The S'un of yesterday contained the announce-
ment, extracted from the Moniteur, that the
Governments of France and England had resolved
to destroy the fortifications on the Isles of Aland,
and that Bomarsund will be evacuated ! ! This
is ominous intelligence. It shows plainly and
-rnequivocally that the Swedish Government is
hanging back, and that it is afraid to incur
enmity of its still terrible neighbour by any
decided movement, even to the extent of again
entering into possession of an important portion
of its own territories, of which it bad been un-
justly and unfairly deprived. This almost un-
accountable hesitation on the part of Sweden can
only We attributed to its doubts as to the sincerity
ofi -the Maritime Powers, and its apprehensiot.s
lest they might be induced to enter into
new treaties with Russia, without making (hie
provision for the protection and security
of the minor States that might act with
them in opposition to the wishes of the
AUTOCRAT. it has seen the toleratiun exhibited
towards the King of PLussrA, that his vacillation,

or, perhaps, what might more fairly be described
as his "palpable leaning" towards Russia, has not
brought with it any punishment or inconvenience ;
but that, on the contrary, the vacillating Monarch
has not even been warmly remonstrated with,
while Isis subjects have been allowed to enrich
themselves
,by the transit of Russian traffic
. ,
through their country, and the agency for all the
commerce of Muscovy.
While such an example i 3 sanctioned on the
• , part •of FREDERICK WILLIAM, what could we ex-
'poet' ftom King Oscan? Ho sees vacillation and
teMPOrising rewarded. He beholds the security
afforded by the "policy of abstention," and why
should he adopt a bolder or more manly course ?
If he again took possession of Aland, to nothing of Finland, he
, would incur the fiercesay animosity of the _Northern Despot, which might
• be productive of very dangerous consequences
when the combined fleets of France and England
had withdrawn from the Baltic, while on the
other hand lie had nothing
to fear. His pusil-
lanimity would insure his safety.
Now it is partly our fault that this state of
been produced, it is most
feeling should have
decidedly so that it should be suffered to con-
tinue. King OSCAR said that, although perhaps
the finest and most powerful navy that the world
ever saw was floating in the Baltic under the
cc union-jack" and " tricolour," that the class of
gun-boats essmtial to operations in shallow water
were withheld, he slw that the "good and ex-
cellent" friend of forty years' standing to the
CZAR was still permitted to remain at the head
of the English Government, and that the entire
..-I)ntrylancl.Tnanagement of the war was delegated
~,,- to -his hancbjby, the representatives of the British
People,- who supplied him with funds sufficient to
'; e.nable" him ".to.idiip' ense with their attendance for
...
,tii„tz
_niontbs.: ~ R
• v:the despatch (
-.—bef probably was cognisant, of
Count MANTEUFFEL, _al-
tiri*ed. to '. in our impression of yesterday,
-- in whiCh the Prussian Minister stated that the
King, guided' .by this encourag
" ing appreciation,
will L,ke his st4n(l on t7,e. RiQsia, ~.„.2,/:,.,, nc.s,
consideratious produced the vacillation winCii not

even the Aland Isles in possession and Finland
in expectancy could dispel—which nothing, in
fact, but more vigorous action, more decided suc-
ceases on our part, could remove. If the fortifi-
cations at Helsingfor or Cronstadt shared the fate
of those at Bomarsund, if the Russian fleet in the
Baltic and its vicinity were completely destroyed,
then might Sweden feel itself at liberty to co-
operate zealouAy and efficiently. And when we
prove to Prussia that we are determined
no longer sanction a suspicious neutrality, then
can we also consistently inform King OSCAR that
we regard those who are not with us " as against
us and that be must forthwith elect the stan-
dard under which he will serve, whether ho will
be the ally of freedom or autocracy.
The destruction of the fortifications at Bomar-
sued affords the strongest evidence that it is the
intention of the Western Powers to permit Russia
to resume possession of these important islands,
and to hold them as a threatening position
over the other nations in the vicinity of the Bal-
fc. Were it otherwise, were we to occupy them
during the winter, or to induce Sweden to do
so, we should have not merely retained,
but strengthened, the forts which, although
they speedily fell before the combined
forces of France and England, might yet, if pro-
perly garrisoned, resist any attacks of Russian,
• troops. But dismantling them proves that we are
doing so to prevent the Ova?, from again using
them, and that we mean to allow him to send his
garrisons there the moment we have removed,
and to surrender the unfortunate inhabitants to
' his tender mercies, to acts towards them in accord-
ance with his mere will and pleasure. Is this
just or proper ? Is it wise or expedient ? Is it
calculated to bring the war to a speedy or honour-
able conclusion ? We fear not. Experience has
proved that there is nothing to be gained from
NICHOLAS by temporising or negotiation. He
will still pursue his nefarious objects through
all the windings of diplomacy—will resort to
every quirk and quibble, and lie and prevaricate
to the end of the chapter. The only argument
to which he is sensible is that of the strong arm.
What he requires is a plain, steadfast determina-
tion on the part of his opponents not to be hum-
bugged, but to enforce instant attention to their
demands. Had we spoken firmly when be first
announced his intention of crossing the Pruth,
single Russian soldier would never have entered
Wallachia or Moldavia. Had we acted resolutely
on their doing so, and sent the combined fleets
into the Euxine, not to daily but to act, peace
would long since have been established on a firm
basis, and we should have been spared the war
inr-
posts—tlie doubled Escome Tax and the enhance].
Julies on mals, sp iri ts,and sugar. To he timidity and
vacillation of Lord ABERDEEN we owe the com-
mencement of hostilities ; to the same deplorable
and disgraceful causes we owe their continuance,
And that ye`, even at the eleventh hour, suffi-
ciently decided steps are not taken to bring the
war to a speedy termination by completely
bumbling the arrogance and reducing the over-
grown power of the aggressor. E is for the
British people to say whether these baleful in-
flitences shall continue in operation—whether
we shall allow the Prime Minister to' mismanage
aff tirs until Parliamentary censure wi I no
longer be sufficient punishment for conduct
teeriting impsachnient. It is necessary that the
voice of public opinion should penetrate
iuto the inmost recesses of Downing-stroet, to
rouse the " travelled Thane" from his placid
slumbers, and teach hint his true position. He
may be assured that the notice referred to by
our facetious contemporary, Punch that " You are
requested not to speak to the man at the helm,"
though it served the purpose last 'Session, will not
again do so, when it is so painfully perceptible
that the pilot is nodding at his post, and steering
the vessel of the State among shoals and rocks, in-
dicated by a threatening mass of " breakers
ahead."

We freely and willingly inserted the communi-
cation from our correspondent " Lex Scotus,"
impugning the views to which we gave expression
in reference to the recent case of BUTLER V.
MOUNTGARRET. The more extensively such ques-
tions are canvassed, the greater facilities for
putting forward conflicting opinions, the more
speedily will truth prevail and the required re-
forms be carried into practical execution. We
do not think that our correspondent clearly under-
stood the tenour of our remarks, or he would have
perceived that they were directed, not against
the absence of formalities where the intention of
the parties to form a matrimonial contract was
clearly apparent, but rather against the slender
nature of the evidence required to prove that in-
tention, and the consequent danger that, after
the lapse of many years, a marriage may be
alleged where none had really taken place, and
considerable injury thereby inflicted on innocent
persons.

The case referred to afforded a very powerful
illustration of that evil. A lady of unblemished
reputation, high respectability, and consider-
able fortune, had, iu the month of September,
1811, formed a suitable alliance with the younger
sou of an Irish nobleman. The marriage had
been duly celebrated in the face of the country.
There was no concealment—everything had been
open and above-board. For forty-three years she
had been recognised as the lawful wife of the
Honourable HENRY BuTLEß—her son, as
_the
presumptive heir of the wide-spread domains, and
ancient title of the family ; her daughters as the
legitimate offspring of an honourable matron.
Had she entertained any doubt as to the nature
of die connexion which her husband had, previous
to his marriage, maintained with Mrs. COLEBROOK,
it would have been set at rest., not merely by the
disclaimer of that unfortunate and misguided
woman herself, but by her subsequent marriage,
in 1812, with another man—and that at a time
when bigamy would have subjected the offenders
to exemplary punishment—and also by the pro-
ceedings instituted in 1816, for the purpose of
legally establishing that marriage of 1812—pro-
ceedings which were sustained by the solemn oath
of SARAH STRIDE, the confidential domestic, that
no marriage had been contracted with BUTLER.
Is it surprising that with such confirmation she
lived on in perfect security as to the validity
of her nuptials, and patiently awaited the time
when her son should, in the course of nature, suc-
ceed to the honours and possession of his family.
What, then, must have been her astonishment,
her horror, when, at the end of more than forty
years, she found her own position and that of her
children questioned, the brand of concubinage
affixedthat of
itlloeghietrimoavz unblemished reputation, and
with all its evils, to her info-
cent children? And all these complicated misfor-
tunes
arising from the undue laxity of the Scot-
tish law on the point of evidence. We have no
interest whatever in the case. We are personally
unacquainted with Mrs. BUTLER or any of her
children, but we cannot help feelino-
sympathy for one who haseen bunjustly and '
un-
fairly exposed to such unparalleled misfortunes
and such unmerited reproach.
If a claim were set • the deepest
up against her for the re-
covery of a sum of money, it would bo barred at
the end of six years by the Statute of Limitations.
If she held adverse possession of land for twenty
year 3 it would confer a clear title against all the
world, but in that which was dearer to her than
wealth or lauds, oven her good name, there was
no time that could sanctify her possession. In one
instance due provisionwh i wohit s
wouldm a de
ariseby law for
after
rr thetho
.and the uninterrupted
lapsedifficulties
of soofoiparn;)f
years,
that period was looked on as an
sAmption. , Iu the other, and
iliCknit4VY9..o4:'e pre -
cD j oym en t
.(.4.::;si Ili ri,g

the far more important instance, her fair fame is
tarnished, her character filched away, and her
children bastardised and deprived of their pro-
perty, after uninterrupted enjoyment for forty-
three years, on the oath of a woman who, accord-
ing to the statement of the advocates setting up
and relying on her testimony, must have been a
perjurer, a wilful and deliberate perjurer, either
in 1816 or in 1854

Our correspondent says "the monstrosity there
does not pertain to the Scotch law, but to the
English (que. Irish ?) Jury, which could decide
against the validity of the English marriage on
such evidence as that produced to prove the
Scotch !" We must, however, entirely dissent
from this statement. We do not, of course, jus-
tify the finding of the Jury. On the contrary,
we have expressed our unqualified astonishment
that any body of twelve gentlemen could have
returned a unanimous verdict against the Eng-
lisli marriage on such deplorably defective
evidence ; but were it not for the state of the
law, the question could not have been submitted
if a better class of evidence were rendered indis-
pensable.
" Form" is not, with all submission to our
correspondent, the " essence" of the English law !
Were it so, we should condemn it as heartily and
unequivocAlly as he seems disposed to do. There
is no "form" necessary. All that is required is
that the parties should declare themselves to be
man and wife before the Registrar, after having
given certain notices of their intention to do so.
Having thus provided unquestionable evidence as
to the civil contract, it is at their own option
whether any religious ceremony shall take place.
Those who in their conscience desire that cere-
mony are allowed to have it celebrated in the
mode they think most binding ; but its absence
does not invalidate the nuptials, or render the
issue illegitimate.
The appearance before the Registrar is for the
purpose of affording decisive proof as to the most
important action of life—the length of notice re-
quired to prevent young persons from too hastily,
fecklessly, or clandestinely entering into a con-
nection that must constitute the happiness or
misery of their future lives. Perhaps the time
required may be too long. It is, however, a
fault on the right side, and any error might be
avoided in the amendment of the Scotch law.

All we require is, that the declaration of the
intention to live • as man and wife in Scotland
should take place before some public functionary,
who would preserve a proper record thereof, and
that there should be sufficient notice of the inten-
tion to prevent so solemn an obligation from being
contracted during a moment of inebriety, or with-
out due consideration. Twenty-four hours might
be sufficient for that purpose ; and we are con-
vinced that our correspondent himself would not
object to that security, or think that it interfered
with the religious liberty of his country, which
we ourselves would defend to the last extremity.
One word only as to the point respecting the
alleged marriage by a:Roman Catholic Priest.
That gentleman is charged with a violation of the
law ; and an illegal act can hardly be brought
forward as a proof of a deficiency of the law.
The complaint is, that the evidence required by
law is wanting. There was the "form," but not
the requisite proof. The care was a hard one on
the young woman, but it arose through her own
imprudence ; and. surely the hardship is not so
great as that inflicted en Mrs. BUTLER, who
adopted every possible precaution required by
law, or which she could by a possibility resort to.
We aro sure that the good sense of our corres-
pondent, "Lux ScoTus," will induce him to
agree with our views, now that- we have removed
any obscurity "by which they might have been
enveloped.