The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

ASSOCIATION.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said, he rose to put the question
of which he gave notice yesterday, to the Hon. Member
for Tewkesbury.
The SPEAKER (interrupting the Hon. Member)
intimated that he could not, in accordance with the
forms of the House, put that question to the Honourable
Member.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said, then he would ask the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether ho was aware that an association, called the
International English and French Association, had been
formed, at the head of which were the names of five
Hon. Members of that House, namely, the Hon. Member
for Tewkesbury, the Hon. Member for the Tower Ham-
lets, the Hon. Member for Bodmin, the Hon. Member for
Macclesfield, and the Hon. Member for Southampton,
the object of that association being an intellectual treat
for Easter week.—(Laughter.) With the permission of
the House, in order to understand the object of his ques-
tion, he would read one or two extracts from the pro-
gramme:—" There was something delicate and gentle-
manly, and something congenial and manly, in the idea
which suggested a military visit of citizenship to the
English nation" " The
social spirit which takes must give 1 We dino
together—we, England and France—in a fa-
mily sense !—(Loud laughter.) You, France, dine
with me to-day. and I, England, claim your hospitality
to-morrow."—(Renewed laughter.) The Honourable
Gentleman went on to read similar extracts, which
elicited the greatest merriment in the House. I
The question which he wished to put to the Under-
Secretary of State was as to whether this association,
at the head of which there were five Members of Parlia-
ment, was at all known officially to the. Government, or
had received any act of registration.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. LEWIS said that he knew little of the association
to which the Hon. Member had called the attention of the
House, except what he bad just read, but it seemed very
innocent in its objects—(Laughter on both sides of the
House)—and he hoped it would prosper.—(Repeated
cheers from Mr. Brown and the Hon. Members around
him.)

Mr. HUMPHREY BROWN—I, Sir, am one of the
Members whose names appear at the head of that pro-
gramme; and I wish—

- The SPEAKER-The Hon. Member is clearly out of
order. I have already said that it was unparliamentary
to put a question to a private Member, or one to thee
Ministers, on m4tters not connected with the business of
the House; mil the Hon. Member, therefore, cannot
proceed.

Mr. BROWN attempted again to speak, but there
were cries of " Chair, chair," on all sides, and ultimately
the lion. Member desisted.—(Cries for the Under-
Secretary of State.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE—He could only put the question
to the Under-Secretary of State, because there were no
other Ministers present.
Mr. WYLD wished to be allowed to answer.— (Cries
of " Order.") Well, then, he would move the adjourn-
ment of the House, to have an opportunity of speaking.
Mr. H. BROWN would second that motion.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member could not
proceed to make such a motion.—(Cries of "Chair,
chair," Mr. Wyld for some time persisting in his motion.)
He had repeatedly explained that no Member could
make a motion which did not relate to the business of
the House.

MARRIAGE WITH THE SISTER OF A
DECEASED WIFE.
Mr. HENLEY presented petitions against the Bill for
legalising marriages within certain degrees of affinity,
sad especially against the clause for this object.

COURT-MARTIALS IN INDIA.-UNJUST SEN-

TENCES AND PLTNISIIMEN rs.

Mr. ANS rEY presented a petition from a person
named Lewis, stating that seventeen persons of the 6th
Regiment of Cavalry, serving in India, had been tried,
convicted, and sentenced on charges of mutiny. It ap-
peared that the offences had originated out of a supposed
order of the Commander-in-Chief, the Marquis of Tweed-
dale, to stop the extra batta. Thay had for four days
refused to saddle their horses, but on the mistake being
explained, they immediately returned to their duty.
For this offence they had been convicted and sentenced
to death, but were afterwards pardoned, returned to their
duty, and for nearly nine months were engaged in the
uninterrupted discharge of that duty, and most of them
chieffy about the person of the Commander-in-
Chief himself. After that time they were again
tried, although they bad been previously pardoned,
two of them were shot, and the rest of them sentenced
to be transported for life. Of the latter all received their
pardon except six, whose sentences were commuted to
seven years' transportation. Whilst these men were
being transported, an attempt was made to bring them
up by habeas corpus, but it failed, and these men were
still suffering injustice. He should to-morrow move that
the petition be printed.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. HOPE wished to call the attention of the House
to a remark he had just heard fall from the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bodmin. The Hon. Member had made an ob-
servation to his Hon. Friend the Member for Wey-
mouth, in reference to the question his Hon. Friend
put a few minutes ago, which he was afraid would lead
to some unpleasant consequences.--(Laughter.)
The Hon. Gentleman's anticipation of a " meeting
did not appear to be entertained by the House or the
Speaker, and the matter was allowed to drop without
any further remark.
ADMIRALTY COURT.

Captain PECHELL wished to usk the Secretary of
the Admiralty what steps have been taken to reform, the
proceedings in the several Vice Admiralty Courts, and
to remedy the complaints made.last session of the gross
abuses that hud taken place at St. Helens, Sierra
Leone, the Cape of Good Hope, and Sydney, New South
Wales.

Mr. WARD said, in answer to the question of the
Gallant Officer, he had to state that the subject was one
of considerable difficulty, the facts not being so clear as
the lion. and Gallant Member seemed to suppose. A
practice had grown up of making extraordinary charges
against parties in these courts, for which the law afforded
them no redress, and as the fees these parties had to pay
were excessively high, the Admiralty were pr&paring a
scale of fees, while they were in communication with
`ir S. Lushington, with a view of establishing some legal
remedies fur those parties.—(Hear, hear )
Mr. HUME wished also to ask a question in refer-
ence to this subject. In New South Wales the abuses
of these courts had been so great that an ordinance had
been passed to put a stop to them, and he wished to be
informed if Government had given their sanction to
that ordinance. If no one was present who could give
him an answer, he would repeat the question to-morrow;
but really it Government could not do auything at home,
he thought the colonies ought to be allowed to take
the abuses into their hands.
Mr. WARD said in New South Wales the courts
had only unnecessarily exercised their powers under the
Act of Parliament.

a high authority on these subjects, in the fourth century
entered into n controversy with another bishop
of the Christian church who differed from him on the
practice of marriage between persons of that degree of
affinity. But undoubtedly this prohibition was imported
into the canoe law, and it had been continued from the
time or the fourth century till the Reformation in England.
The canon law formed no part of the law of England,
except it was confirmed by Act of Parliament. But,
although the law of England said, if such a marriage
took place, and was not disturbed during the life`
time of both the parties, it should be a valid
marriage to all intents and purposes, yet if the
ecclesiastical law annulled that marriage, the law of
Etigland acknowledged the authority of that court in
annulling the marriage.—(Hear, hear.) After the
authority of the Roman Catholic Church was established
in this country there came with it all the canons of the
Romish Church, and that among many others. Such was
the state of the law until the reign of Henry VIII. Front
that time those marriages had been forbidden down to
the Council of Trent; but they had been dispensed with
by the Roman Catholic Church, and in con-
sequence of that power of dispensation it
was that Henry VIII. espoused - Catherine
of Arragon, who was the wife of his deceased brother.
It was by the dispensation of the Pope that that mar-
riage took place, end the very ground of that dispense•
than was, that that marriage was not forbidden by the
law of God. Afterwards, when Henry was desirouS
of marriage with Anne Boleyn, Archbishop Cranmer
was instructed to procure the opinion of the highest
ecclesiastical authorities in this and foreign countries,
and Cranmer was convinced that the marriage was for-
bidden, and therefore he would not be responsible for it.
At that time the canon law was in so con-
fused and unsatisfactory a state that at the
time of the Reformation Cramer undertook to revise
and regulate that canon law. The validity of Anne
Bolepa's marriage depended on the doctrine that mar-
riage with a deceased brother's wife was unlawful, and
the title of Queen Elizabeth to the throne depended on
that doctrine, and it was not to bo supposed that Cranmer
would have subscribed to that doctrine unless he had
been convinced of its overwhelming force and weight.
Under these circumstnnces, ho (Mr. Wortley) said it
was that that table of prohibition was drawn up by
Archbishop Parker which was now hung up in
the churches of this country, and sometimes
added to the Book of Common Prayer. It is univer-
sally acknowledged that that table was no part
of the Book of Common Prayer, and it
had been bound up with it for convenience sake.
There was just this difference between the working of
this limitation before the Reformation and after it—that
whereas before the Reformation there was a power of
dispensation from the results of illegal marriages, after
the Reformation the power of dispensation was gone. By
the Act—he believed it was 21st Hen. Vlll.—the power
of dispensation was transferred from the Pope to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, but the limits of this power;
were unknown. The consequence of this, however, was,
that in all cases where the restriction was grievously
felt, and where inquiry showed that the marriage did
not interfere with the ascertained prescriptions of the law,
of God, it was dispensed with. At any rate, thepower was'
seldom exercised. He believed that the last time it
was used was in the reign of James 1., in the year 1608,
and after that time all difficulties were referred to the
Ecclesiastical Courts until an Act of Parliament was
passed to regulate all the points which bad been mooted
before the several tribunals, and the result was to esta-'
blish a set of principles for adjudicating on the laws of•
marriage.—(Hear, hear.) By that law several kinds of
marriages were rendered voidable, while others were
absolutely void. Marriages which were merely, so far
as their morality was concerned, matters of
nion, came under the former category, and those.
which were contrary to the known will of God,.
as declared in the pages of revelation, were included in
the second rule. Such was the state of the
law, and it led to great and grievous cruelties.--
(Hear, hear.) One instance he might mention, as he'
had the facts on the high authority of his friend Dr.
Lushington. A gentleman had married a lady within
the restricted degrees of consanguinity, and after they had
been married upwards of twenty years, and when
he had fallen into old age, the circumstance was taken'
advantage of by a malicious relative, and the marriage
was declared void by the Ecclesiastical Courts,
and the children were illegitimatized, and
the whole family after the father's death cast into poi.
verty—(Hear, hear.) Yet deep as was the injury telt:
in many quarters, the evil received little notice until a,
marriage without the restricted degrees took place
between persons in a high station of life (the family of
Downshire), and a Bill was introduced by Lord Lynd-
hurst, the object of which was certainly not to prevent
such marriages as he was desirous of legalisingt
but in the course of the debate in the other House oe
Parliament a suggestion was made, he believed, by
Lord Brougham, that these marriages should he
absolutely void. Unhappily, as he thought, this view.
of the case was adopted by the Bishops, and the Bill wile
passed. But had it the effect desired?' Certainly not, for
on inquiry by persona of the highest respectability, it
was found that it had altogether failed of its object.
Now from such sources as these was their information
obtained, and he would direct the attention of the House
to the information itself, which was to be found in page
eight of the report. The inquiry was instituted in
1842, at the expense of some private individuals, for
the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which
the Act had been evaded. The inquiry was
limited to a period of less than three months, and
to a comparatively small portion of England, but the
district in which it was made was likely to afford a geed
criterion of the extent of these prohibited marrisfro
throughout the whole country.—(Hear, hear.) 1..h.e.
inquiry was carried on first in the manufacturing
portions of Lancashire and Yorkshire ; secondly.
iii Norfolk and Suffolk ; thirdly, in Warwickshire
and Staffordshire, with the view of taking in Bit'
iningliatn and the Potteries ; fourthly, in part
of Hampshire; and, fifthly, in the towns
of Bristol, Bath, and Cheltenham. The information ob-
tained by the inquiry amounted to this, that 1,364
marriages within the prohibited degrees bad
been solemnized since the poising of Lord Lyndhurst's
9cr. It was difficult to ascertain what proportion this
number bore to the whole population of the districts,
but it might reasonably be supposed that this nura-
ber of marriages formed a tenth of ' the whole that
took place in the districts and taking three children for
each marriage, it would be 40,000 children whom the
law bastardized. Besides that evil, the law tended to de'
moralise a large portion of the community, and frequent') •
led to the commission of the crime of perjury; while
clergymen complained that they were often obliged to
solemnize marriages in cases where they could not pool-
bly have an opportunity of ascertaining whother the
parties were within the prohibited degrees or not, a W
sequence which frequently led to the deseerg
tionof the Holy Communion.—(Cries of " Hear, beer'
„I
This difficulty was therefore painfully felt by men'
clergymen, and certainly some means ought to be (it'
vised for removing them from such painful positions:
Either the restrictions ought to be rendered
more rigid, or the law ought to be made
conformable to the general wishes of the people.
Again, many marriages were now solemnized, under
recent Act, before the registrar, who had no possible
means of ascertaining the relationship of the
parties; while many parties, who were unwilling
to violate the law, resorted to other countries not lest
moral than our own, for the purpose of being married,
but still the law which he now complained of dew
Glared the children of those marriages to ,be illegitimate.
The demoralization caused by the marriage law, as it
at present existed, rendered some change necessary; and,
in order to effect an alteration in the right direction he,
proposed the present Bill to the House. The Right
Bon. Gentleman concluded by asking for leave to bring
in his Bill.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. H. T. HOPE, who was understood to oppose the
proposition then brought forward, addressed the House
for some time, and referred at some length to earioue
documents arid papers in support of the views he enter'
tained; but the Hon. Member was almost totally inau"
dible in the gallery from the low tone of voice in which
he spoke, as well as the noise which prevailed during
his address. In concluding his observations, he was 0"
derstood to say that he would not take the sense of the
House upon the present motion of his Right Hon. Friona
for leave to bring in his Bill, but that he would divide
upon the second reading.—(Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER said that he felt it his duty to offer,
the most strenuous opposition to this measure, but
he thought that at this stage he would not go into
any matter of principle, or enter at large ups
the subject. The existing law, from the
earliest period down to the present time, was bet'
to be the exponent of Christian morality and of the Will
of Gad, and such they were informed by the Com:nit
sioners was the prevailing belief in this eountiy. AP
that he would say was, that when that Commiaskit
issped.he thought they should have had a very differ/
sort of inquiry.—(Hear.) It was mostly made up
the evidence of prejudiced and interested witnesses. 0°
expected to have found archbishops and bishops, and
persons learned in the law ecclesiastical, examined ;
but
there was nothing of the sort. Instead of a general 'l3".
quiry, it was conducted in a limited manner, and for
limited purpose, and not entitled to that consideratio
claimed for it. These were important matters to v",
borne in mind in cloning to a deliberate conclusion on
this important subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY stated Lis full concurrence in all tbf
remarks made by the Hon. Member with respect to Ow
mode in which the Commission had been conducted. M
this Bill was founded upon this report, he would 00°1thatit, for, though he would not divide the House on that
stage of it, he wished to guard against its being or
posed he could give any sanction to the measure. If the
evidence of interested persons was taken away from the
Commission's report, what weight of testimony bad their
to chow that fEis alteration of the law was deSirable _
He would go one step further. It was hardly possible of
reed the evidence without perceiving that one class
witnesses had been subjected to examination of a chars
ter totally different from the character of the examinaa
tion to which others had been subjected. He had bee° _
struck with the very searching legal cross-examinatt
2.1;
in some instances, and the want of it in the careZ
witnesses to whom it ought to have been applied'
Apart from the propriety or impropriety of examtu▪ Las
paid persons who gave, not their own testiniony,?t
that of others, they were a class of witnesses who oari.
to have been subjected to the' most severe cross-exam„,
nation. They might almost be likened to electione
agents, who put down every man that did not ePl▪
frptut
their faces as being in favour of their candidate.
who believed the report brought in by an electioneering
agent? The Right Hon. and L'arned Gentlemanwrd,
S. Wortley) said no report had been made recoenaw.4o
ing legislation because that question did not li
the powers of the Commission. But he took upcninilsisio
self here to say, he -had the authority of the Coro
_ere
they wee
in of whom was dead—for declaring that
in favour of legislation.
Mr. S. WORTLEY lutd rigid he could-not und