The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-25 00:00:00

TO THE *-SECRETARY -OF THE

METROPOLITAN REFORM ASSOCIATION.

Sir,—On Wednesday the 20th, the Marriage .Bill
was brought to a second reading. If any man had a
logical museum deficient in specimens of the argu-
ment in a circle, or almost any other description of
diseased organization, or if he wanted authority for
the French sarcasm, ami le theologien, vous raisonnez
comme un theologien,—he could have no richer ground
to hunt in, than the opposition to the Bill. Two or
three of the instances were so good, that it would
be a sin against the public to omit the noticing.
A representative of mark among what will be
efficiently described as the "over-good Protestants"
of Ireland, nailed to the portals of the House's hearing
the following thesis :—" That when a principle is pro-
posed, and there is any doubt about it, we are for
safety to accei t the principle of the proposer." ApPIY
this to our ultra-Protestant, and ask him, if there
has ever been any doubt suggessted, whether transub-
stantiation is not the true doc rine of the Church ;
whether the Pope has not a right to depose Kings,
for if there has not, our ancestors have committed an
enormous fully by directing an oath against the
tenet, and we by preserving it ;—whether auri-
cular confession, is or is not a rite recommended in
Scripture ;--whether the celibacy of the clergy, is
not justifiably grounded on scriptural declarations in
favour of the freedom of single life, backed by the
general authority of the Church to determine on points
of discipline. On each and all of these points, has
there or has there not been any doubt suggested,
maintained, and fought for, in opposition to the rule
now supported by Protestants on those subjects ? If
there has, why on his own principle should not a
Catholic demand of the Member for the University of
Dublin to pronounce for the immediate installation of
Confessionals and the Mass within its walls.

Another Hon. Member referred mysteriously to
declarations against the Canaanites, as throwing light
upon the question whether marriage with a wife's
sister was or was not prohibited to the Jews. He was
called on without success to "read ;" and to those
who did read, it was plain that his argument resolved
itself into the fact, that after the enumeration of
things prohibited to the Jews, it was declared that
these were the offences for which the Canaanites had
been cast out. How this declaration could in any
way affect the question of what was and was not in-
cluded in the preceding prohibitions, is for doctors
to inquire.

A third stood upon the limited proportion of those
who personally suffer by the existing law, to those
who do not. That is to say, there are only sixteen
hundred cases besides the unknown, involving the
feelings of at least sixteen thousand individuals; and
these are beneath the attention of the State, because
none but the sufferers suffer. If the logician were to
be condemned to say his neck verse at Hairibee, how
small would be his chance of relief upon the principle
he maintains !

Tokens were given towards the conclusion of the
debate, of a design to attempt expunging the words
authorising marriage with a wife's niece. Nothing
can be more impolitic than burthening a sound
case with an unsound one. The differences between a
wife's sister and niece, are essential and strong. The
wife's sister is of the same generation, and therefore
on the average of the same age with the husband.
The wife's niece is of a younger generation, and in a
great proportion of cases has been brought up in the
intimacy and under the guardianship of the husband,
to the same extent as his own nieces. There are no
instances, or none known, of a man's attempting to
corrupt the wife's sister during the lifetime of the
wife ; and for this plain reason, that the sister is a
person of a reasoning age, and therefore able to take
care of herself. There have been instances of a man's
attempting to corrupt the nieces during the wife's
lifetime, by taking advantage of the unsuspecting con-
fidence with which they treated him in infancy. If
there is any real desire for liberation on the subject of
the wife's sister, one of the first rational movements
would be to cut away the niece. Does any man believe,
that there will not be ten votes lost by her introduc-
tion, for one that will be gained by it ? The second
reading was carried by 177 against 143.
On Thursday Lord Nugent made his motion for a
Committee to consider the means of making a different
apportionment of the burthen of maintaining the
poor ; in other words, what is called a national rate.
There are clearly some reasons why a movement in
alteration should be desirable; but the great ob-
stacle is always in the question, of how any economy
in expenditure is to be secured, if everybody is to
expend out of somebody else's purse. As the House
did not see how this difficulty was to be got over, the
motion was negatived.
Oa Friday Mr. Roebuck put a question to the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, "on the subject of
Rome, in order to ascertain whether any disapproba-
tion has been expressed by her Majesty's Governmen,t,
of the proposed bombardment of Rome by the French.
The question, by an extension of the rules of the
House which demonstrates the interest taken in it,
was introduced by a powerful speech, which was
supported throughout by cheers from both sides
of the House. The answer produced from the
profess to have interfered by any formal Secretary was important and direct. He did not
remon-
strance, but he expressed to the House the disappro-
bation of the British Government in a way which can-
not fail to produce its fruit. Mr. Hume followed in
aid, and brought out some repetitions and confirma-
tions of the Ministerial declarations. The effect of
the whole was to give a strong impression of the light
in which this most dishonourable transaction is
viewed in England.
On the same night came on the Budget,
comparatively
which was passed with little of
criticism or opposition. An attempt was made by
the tenants of the Protectionist benches to stand up
for a five shilling duty on corn. But so little were
by rote,
they masters of their subject, that they made a per-
petual misstatement of their argument, urging that if
duties yvere removed in England the price would fall
in ioreign countries and vice cersd,aud throwing away
their cheers upon this melancholy exhibition. The
fact seems to be, theyspeak
serves nearly as well as another.
for
The Transportation Treason
and(r n
e aonde ;
went through Committee without alterations, by large
majorities. thing

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
AN OLD REFORMER.
London, June 25, 1849.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MAR-

RIAGE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dublin, June 21.
MARIA WILSON V. JOHN DOUGLAS.
(Before the LORD Center BARON and a Special Jury.)
At the Nisi Prius Exchequer Court yesterday the
case of Maria Wilson v. John Douglas was brought to
trial. It was an action for a breach of promise of
marriage made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Damages were laid at 3,0001. The defendant pleaded
the general issue.
Mr. FITZGIBBON proceeded to state the case. The
plaintiff was a native of Manchester, and was now in
her 23d year. She was the daughter of a Mr. Wil-
son, the owner' of an extensive factory in that town.
Mr. Wilson, in the year 1846, and subsequently, was
in partnership with Mr. Coply; and that gentleman
became acquained with a Mr. King, who shortly
after became partner with him and Wilson in
that factory. Early in the summer of 1847, the
defendant, who was an Irishman, a gentleman of
ver
y countycons fidoeraAblrempagrohr
visitedrt Manchester,
y,which was situated
andituatedin
thewhen
there became intimate with Mr. King. This gave
him a ready introduction to the family of Mr.
Wilson, with whom he was on visiting terms for a
week or ten days, at the end of which period he left,
professing his intention of travelling on the Continent
for a year. The defendant was between twenty-six
and thirty years of age. Up to this period not the
mmtoya.bn,enjaooerh
slightest thought of him entered into the minds of
Mr. Wilson or his daughters ; but at the end of ten
days the defendant returned to Manchester. There
was another family in the neighbourhood, into which
the defendant had been introduced—a family of the
name of Bellhouse. He should have stated that the
defendant derivsd his property from a gentleman
named Garmony, who died some years ago, and left
the defendant property amounting to about a thousand
a year. On his return he became more intimate with
the family of Mr. Wilson than he had been, and on
the 6th of' July he wrote the following letter, and sent
it by his friend Mr. King :
" July 6, 1847, Tuesday Morning.
"My dear Mr. Wilson,—l am sure, from my mailed
attention to your daughter, that you are aware that I
am deeply in love with her. I think it my duty as a
gentleman to put you in possession of these facts, and
should they meet with your approval, I shall only be too
happy to talk the matter over with you at your conveni-
ence. I have already spoken to Maria on the subject, and
weolnlwyiwshanathyooutro
msanctionentien
,t ob
ut makel believe
ibotheve you
are in
possession of the facts relative to the Bellhouses, and
candidu ri t
atzle
wit
with
straightforward,yeu,lw i l
land e I
treatedam su sure, from
like
which, if it meets your approval, I will explain. I wish
—n
WBeilliseovne,mßeg,q.m, y dear Sir, yours faithfully,
Eagle-hill, ‘‘J
Manchester.o nN D 01401.4.13.
Upon reading that letter Mr. Wilson thought it ne-
cessary to make some inquiries respecting the state-
ments it contained about the Bellhouses. He asked
Mr. King to explain that matter, and was informed
that Mr. Douglas, the defendant, had been intimate
with that family, and was paying his addresses to one
of the young ladies ; that he subsequently discovered
the family were going to entrap him ; that theymade
proposals of a settlement of his property on Miss
Bellhouse in such a way as to intimate that lucre was
their motive ; that he had become disgusted, and
broke off all connexion with them ; and that Mr.
Garmony on his death-bed laid Mr. Douglas under a
positive injunction never to have anything to do- with
them in future. On that occasion Mr. Wilson
took the opportunity of explaining to the de-
fendant that his present circumstances would: not