The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

he thought that there was no ground of complaint, for
t after he (Sir J. Graham) sat down, the gentleman who
' represented that office in the House would rise and state
that there was no vestige of any accusation against Sir
' E. Wilmot remained in that office. With regard to the
conduct. of Mr. Gladstone, the accusations made against
Sir E. Wilmot were made by three individuals upon
such strong aui,.ority, that no Secretary of State would
have been justified in overlooking them. Two of these
gentlemen were at present iu Van Diemen's Land, and
the third had shrunk from allowing his name to come
forward as one of his accusers.—(Hear, hear.) Mr.
Gladstone had done all in his power to soften the harsh-
ness of Sir E. Wilmot's recal as far as it could be done,
and in all proceedings towards him Mr. Gladstone had
adopted the very kindest course. He put bef pre Sir
Eardley Wilmot the accusations made against him, and
gave him every assistance in his power to enable
him 'to clear himself. These charges had since been
entirely disproved, and he was glad to be able to say
that the character of Sir E. Wilmot, both public and
private, had been freed from any taint or suspicion.
The only fault of Mr. Gladstone was by sending that
private letter which warned Sir E. Wilmot of the position
in which he stood.
Mr. HAWES said that he had hardly thought that
it would be necessary for him to rise upon that occasion.
With regard to what his Hon. Friend the Member for
Birmingham had stated, it was not altogether accurate.
His Noble Friend near him was not cagnisant of what
was alleged against Sir Eardley Wilmot except through
a dispatch from that gentleman himself. He agreed
with his Noble Friend teat no record of accusation ex-
isted in the Colonial-office against Sir E. Wilmot. He
did not wish to cast any reproach upon Mr. Gladstone.
Atter a few words from Sir C. DOUGLAS,
Mr. CURTEIS said that he did not envy the feelings
of those three gentlemen who originated the calumny
against Sir E. Wilmot. If they had not caused that
gentleman's death, they at least embittered his dying
moments, and he must describe them as foul calumnia-
tors. He objected to the conclusion of the address of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham. He merely rose to
show the three gentlemen to whom he alluded that a
strong feeling existed as to their conduct, and from the
expression of that feeling he had not shrunk.—(Hear.)
Mr. BORTHWICI( said the lion. Member for Tam-
worth had asserted that the grounds upon which Sir E.
Wilmot had been recalled were not public; but no doubt
his recal was produced by some circumstances stated in
the secret dispatches. Whether communications to
whicla allusions had been made were, or were not,
anonymous, they were sufficient to induce Mr. Glad-
stone to act upon them, and to inflict upon an innocent
man a deep injury. The Governor was sacrificed in this
case, and the calumniators were protected. It was quite
clear that the present Colonial Secretary had nothing to
do with the matter, however it might be sought by the
predecessors of the present Ministry to attach to them
the odium of an act of which they alone were culpable.
Mr. HORSMAN said that he rose merely to ask
whether the Hon, Member for Birmingham had fur-
nished the name of the Gentleman in question to the
Colonial-office, and whether it was intended to take any
steps respecting this, which was called a foul conspiracy.
As regarded the other part of the transaction connected
with Mr. Gladstone, of which they had heard so much
that evening, he must say, particularly anxious as he
was to avoid any personal allusion, that he felt it impos-
sible to refrain from saying that he (Mr. Gladstone),
though he had acted candidly in forwarding the secret
letter to Sir Eardley Wilmot, still that his conduct was
extremely rash and extremely indefensib!e. It had
been admitted that he had acted indiscreetly. In con-
clusion, he must say that public duty called upon them
to express their opinion strongly when a public man had
been grievously treated.
Mr. SPOONER sail he did not know the name of
the gentleman alluded to.
Mr. HORSMAN said he held a high official situation.
Mr. SPOONER said he d.d not know the person al- i
luded to.

Captain GLADSTONE said that the Hon. Gentle-
man who had just sat down, had expressed his regret
gret that the late Secretary for the Colonies had not at
the bottom of his letter to Sir E. Wilmot, senior, ex-
pressed his sorrow, and avowed his indiscretion, in the
course he had pursued. lie could assure the House that
his Right lion. relative had been only actuated by a
sense of kindness in his conduct to Sir E. Wilmot. He
deeply regretted that the charges had been made, but
his defence rested on these charges, for he could not
have acted otherwise in his position, than to have asked
the recal of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land. If

they knew the names of the parties who had made the
accusation, they would feel the difficulty in which his
Right Hon. relative was placed.
Mr. ROEBUCK seid that he did not know why they
should not have the names of mese gentlemen, who had
informed " my Right Hon. relative" of these untruths
which had led to the disgrace and mat of an honest
man. He had his own thoughts of what con,tituted
official reserve when he found that the charges of knaves
were received to the ruin of honest men. The accusa-
tion must have been a grave one, which would lead to
the recal of a Governor of one of their Colonies, and
why were they not supplied with the names of the par-
ties making these accusation, without making any enquiry
into the truth of these charges this gentleman was
dismissed.—(No, no.)—No, no ! why he was punished ;
he was dismissed.—(No, no.) Then, if he was not dis-
missed on account of this accusation, for what reason
was he dismissed ? Why, they had the reasons of dis-
missal given in the private letter of the Secretary him-
self. He stated that the reason for his recal was im-
moral conduct ; he stated that he could not recommend
him to any other appointment, because of his immoral
conduct ; he stated that he was incapable of governing
the colony, because of his immoral conduct. But what
was the specific accusation, and the date of it ? Let the
House learn that, if it was intended to satisfy it,
But it was also the case that ignorance, audacity, and
mischief had always characterised their government of
the colonies. He hoped that the time would soon arrive
when they should nit be burdened with an irresponsible
Colonial Administration.
Mr. HOPE said he should not follow the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman through the whole of the charges
which he made against the Colonial Administration.
The grounds on which Sir Eardley Wilmot was recalled,
were of a public kind, and had no reference to his private
character. Earl Grey had expressed his satisfaction at
that recal; he had admitted that the grounds on which
Sir Eardley Wilmot was recalled, was sufficient, without
any reference to his private character. He (Mr. Hope)
could, if the House required it, show what were these
public grounds, and he was sure that they would be
deemed amply sufficient to justify that removal.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that he distinctly charged the
late Secretary for tie,. Cplonies with haling dismissed
Sir Eardley Wilmot on the faith of these anonymous
calumnies. The Hon. Member refused to give the dates
of these charges, but they were contained in the dispatch
itself. That dispatch was dated the 30th Aprii, 1846,
which was the date of the very private letter which re-
called Sir Eardley Wilmot on the ground of his immoral
conduct. Well, he had said he would not take up the
time of the House with the personal part of this subject,
and he would keep his word. Now, with regard to the
general question, he could not help thinking that the
present Government had passed over the claims of Sir
Eardley Wilmot in a very cavalier manner, and the
question for that house to dt,cide was this, were the
colonies always to be governed upon Mr. Glalstobe's
principles. A defence of Mr. Gladstone had been at-
tempted by those who were associated with him in
office, but he ventured to doubt its honesty, or why were
not the names, upon which this unfounded charge was
made, not discloved ?—(Hear, hear.) This case was
very similar to one he had formerly brought before the
House, when a public officer was dismissed from office
upon insufficient grounds, and he really thought it too
much to he called upon to rest satisfied with the declara-
tion that Mr Gladstone had discovered his error, and
repented what he had done. The House ought to have
some guaraetee in future that more caution would be
used by her Majesty's Government in cases of this sort.
Sir WALTER JAMES really must protest against
the language used by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down. while speaking of his Right
Hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman pronounced his defence to
be dishonest, but he fur one did not think so. He felt
convinced that his Right Honourable Friend dismissed
Sir Eardley Wilwott, upon public grounds, and not upon
the faith of charges against that Gentleman's personal
character.

Mr. W. MILES would not allow the sincere friend-
ship he entertained for the late Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Secretary for the Colonies, to interfere with his
arriving at an impartial conclusion upon this painful
topic ;
• but he could not bring himself to the belief that
his Right Hon. Friend entertained the feelings attributed
to him by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. He felt confident
that his Right Hon. Friend wrote the letter to which so
much allusion had been made, with the view of giving
Sir E. Wilmot an opportunity of clearing his character,
while he was no less certain that Sir E. Wilmot's dis-
missal was founded upon public grounds and public
grounds alone. His Right Hon. Friend felt that Sir E.
Wilmot was not competent to perform the functions of
governor of so important a colony as South Australia,
and it was through that conviction the dismissal was
agreed upon.—(Hear.) It was no great charge to
make against a man that he could not govern a
colony, when some of the most experienced Members
of that House found the task to be a very dtfficult mat-
ter. So far as that charge was concerned, therefore, it
went for nothing, and he attached no importance to it.
It did not lessen Sir E. Wilmot in his estimation, nor
would it have lessened him in the estimation of his Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, for he
'knew that had he remained in office he would have em-
ployed Sir E. Wilmot in another capacity the moment
that Sir Eardley had cleared his character from the im-
putation that had been cast upon it. So far as the let-
ter was concerned, he thought the friends of Sir Eardley
Wilmot were indebted to his Right Hon. Friend for
bringing about these explanations, because they would
teach future colonial Governments that they could not
be too cautious in entertaining charges, against honour-
able individuals entrusted with the government of dis-
tant colonies.

Sir R. H. INGLIS thought it a matter of regret that
the tone of the debate for the last hour had been so
widely different from that at its commencement. The
&bate began with a speech more of sorrow than anger
by the Hon. Member for Birmingham, and his defence
of the injured Sir Eardley Wilmot was considered by
all persons present as complete and triumphant. Not a
single angry word was beard in the debate until within
the last hour, and he hoped that the subject would now
be brought to a conclusion similar to that of its com-
mencement, so as to vfflrd opportunity for the House to
..roceed with tit, th r tin-iness More it.
The 6;T then dr ,pp-d.
IiEGISTERI Bpart•-; AND mARRI.wEs
' (s.i,orLA.ND) iaLL.
• • _
T!-„, wa:s then" read -for 7,oing irtrt
Committee uu tri,:se
Several petitions were presented against these Bills.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said that he was happy

that he did not stand in the way of the motion of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham, seeing the very able
manner in which he had performed the duty which de-
volved upon him. He wouid now endeavour shortly to
state to the House the greueds which had led the Go-
vernment to propose the present Bills for the registra-
tion of births and marriaeee. There could be no doubt
that the subject anticipated by the Bills was a very im-
portant one, for the purpose of effarding accurate statis-
tical and other important information. For the considera-
tion of the course proposed to be followed in carrying
out the Bill, the Government had to bear in mind that
a system of registration had existed for ten years in
England. After mature consideration it was decided
that a plan similar to that proposed in England should
be adopted in that country, and it was therefore proposed
that a central registration office should be established at
Edinburgh, with numerous other districts or divisions.
The existing town clerks of the larger towns of that
country could afford the opportunity of immediately
carrying out the provisions of the Bill at considerably less
expense than in this country. With respect to the ex •
penses of carrying out the Bill, it was not proposed that
any advances should be made from the Treasury to meet
the expenses of carrying out the measure, but that local
taxation should be made to support the whole of the system..
He thought that if he attempted to raise the expense of.
this registration from the personal or real property of
Scotland, such a rate would not be favourably received.
It then became a question with him, what course, under
these circumstances, he should adopt, and after a care-
ful consideration of the subject, he could see nothing
more expedient, more cheap, more convenient, or more
just than a paroChial rate, as proposed in this Bill. He
knew there were strong obj' cti ins to this mode of rating,
but of the various proposals that were made to defray
the expenses of the registration, it appeared to him to
be the most eligible. He had asked those who objected
to this mode of assessment, what other course they
would propose, but none of them were able. to
give him a satisfactory solution to that question.
There were 786 session clerks, 423 inspectors of the
poor, and many of them held various offices, such as
clerks of session, collectors of the poor-rates, clerks to
the heritors, and also other offices of various kinds ; and
he found that a schoolmaster, who bad been one of the
great leaders of the movement against these Bills, was a
session clerk, an inspector of the poor, a collector of the
poor-rates, clerk to the heritors, and held, besides, seven
other offices—(Cries of " Hear, hear ")—in fact, he
did the duty of eleven other offices. They were
told that registers were kept in Scotland ; so there
were in England before the Registration Act ; but
as the best results had followed from this Act,
in England. and as great evils prevailed in Scotland
from the inefficient system in use, he thought it ought
no longer to exist, and that the Bill before the House
ought to be passed to remedy it. In fact the system
pursued in Scotland was utterly useless. Intimately
connected with registration was the subject of marriage.
Both the common and statute law of Scotland required
nothing more to render a marriage valid than the con-
sent of the parties, of the age of maturity—no consent of
their guardians was necessary, nor was the intervention
of any minister of religion necessary to perform the
ceremony. Perhaps he might be met with this argu-
ment—that it was a salutary principle to make marriage
depend upon the deliberate consent of the parties ;
but, nevertheless, it was pregnant of evil, as
there was no standard—there were no fixed rules or
criterion of what was a valid or invalid marriage, and
such contracts might be proved either by writing or
merely by parole evidence. If a man and woman pro-
mised-to marry each other, and connexion followed, the
law said that such a contract was insuperable from a
mass of inconsistent facts the law might infer marriage.
He had known cases proved from letters which had been
exchanged between the parties, but the marriage of
which were so ob,,cure that the judges trembled at the
decision which they were obliged to give. Under such
a state of things could it be wondere 4 at that most lament-
table cases were repeatedly brought before the courts of
justice. There was a case which had iven rise to one of
the most distinguished judgments ever delivered from the
Bench. A gentleman of birth, who afterwards became
the inheritor of a very high title in Scotland, and very
rich estates, contracted a marriage of this kind with a
lady in 1802 or 1803 ; but the marriage between them
simply consisted in letters which had passed between
them. They never lived together like married people.
In 1808 the gentleman came to England. Being a man
of no honour in this respect, and thinking, perhaps, that
evidence of his former marriage had been destroyed, be
contracted a marriage with a lady who was connected
with one of the very highest families in England. There
was no issue ; but soon after their marriage, a suit was
commenced against the husband by his former wife, and
the decision of the Court annulled the second marriage,
and the lady thus divorced was doomed to much degra-
dation in consequence. But let them suppose a case in
which a title or extensive property was involved, and
they would perceive how great the evil was which he
sought to remedy. There was not a country in the
civilised world in which the law of marriage was so un-
justifiable as in Scotland. The banns of marriage were
published generally in an inaudible voice, and at a time
that the congregation were either in the act of assemb-
ling or dispersing, not as they were in England at the
most solemn part of the service, when every body was
attentive. By the statute law the witnesses could not be
prosecuted unless a clergyman in orders celebrated
the marriage, and consequently the people resorted to
persons who were] not authorised. Now he proposed
that no marriage should legally take place, unless cele-
brated by the recognised minister of religion ; and he
would say, that unless the parties chose to resort to the
clergyman they should go to the public register, where
competent persons should witness and legalize the act.
—(Hear, hear.) Now it had been objected to
him, that he proposed to make marriages valid
for a time, and then not so. He did not- propose
anything so absurd. But in order to prevent such mar-
riages as those of Gretna-green, which were most objec-
tionable, he had proposed that the register could not
certify unless one of the parties was resident within the
district for a certain period of time. His object inris-
ing was to move that the House do resolve itself
into a Committee for the consideration of the
subject this day three months. In the mean-
time, he would give every possible consideration to
every fair and legitimate allegation;which could be urged
against him, he certainly would not lend an attentive ear
to any clamour which might be ignorantly urged,
Mr. FORBES said that he would continue to object
to the Bill, and be was content to remain in the
class designated by the Noble Lord as " unreasoning."
The people of Scotland objected to the Bill on account
of the stigma it would impose upon local schoolmasters,
who would be prevented by this Bill from exercising
their functions. The people of Scotland objected to
this Bill also because it would in effect prevent the poor
man from being married according to the rites of the
national Church. He thought the clause which com-
pelled the parties present at the death of an individual,
whether relatives, medical attendants, or any other per-
sons to give information of the event to the register
was objectionable. These were some of the grounds on
which the people of Scotland petitioned against the Bill.
The motion was then agreed to.
PRISONS' BILL.
The adjourned debate oa this -la 'was postponed till
Thursday.

• 4.
TURNPIKE
The Turnpike Acts Cunti:,uanee Acts Bill was read a
bird time and passed.
DESTITUTE PERSONS (IRELAND).
The Destitute Persons (Ireland)* Bill was read a se-
cond time.
NE WFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT.
The Newfoundland Governmint Bill report was
brought up.
PRISONERS REMOVAL (IRELAND).
The Prisoners Removal (Ireland) Bill was committed,
and ordered to be reported this day.
The Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time and I,assed.
The Police Clauses Bill went thro']gh Committee.
The Royal Marine Service Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The Trust Money Investment (Ireland) Bill was read
a third time and passed ; as was also the Juvenile Offen-
ders Bill.
The Leith Harbour and Docks Bill went through
Committee.
On the motion for the postponement of the
MIDLAND AND GREAT WESTERN OF IRE-
LAND RAILWAY BILL,
ord GEORGE BENTINCK said that when this
Bill came before the House, it was his intention to call
the attention of the House to all the details of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. HUDSON,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was his intention
to bring on the Bill.
STAGE CARRIAGES DUTIES BILL.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on this Bill.
On the motion for the adjournment of the House,
Colonel SIBrHORP begged to: call the attention of
the House to the accidents that had occurred on the
London and North Western Railway, No less than
seventeen lives had been lost on railways during the last
fortnight, and he thought Government ought to adopt
some measure to prevent such loss of life.
Mr. HUDSON said that no person could regret
these accidents more than he did, and he would not
object to an inqairy being instituted to investigate
the subject. Calamities of a similar character had
occurred by other means of conveyance than railways,
which it would be as well equally to investigate.
Nothing was more distressing to the directors of railway
companies than these accidents, and he was sure, if the
astute mind of the Hon. and Gallant Colonel could sug-
gest any means by which they could be prevented, the
would be only too happy to adopt them. y
The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

SURREY THEATRE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—A statement having appeared in your paper
that the roof of the Royal Surrey Theatre has been
injured by the fire which took place at the tavern adjoin-
ing, this morning, I shall feel obliged by your correcting
the error into which your reporter has fallen. Neither
the roof, nor any other portion of the theatre having
sustained the slightest damage, and, consequently, the
performances proceeding as usual.
Your obedient servant,
J. KERSCHNER, Acting-Manager.
Royal Surrey Theatre, June 7, 1847.

amanasdeuSs'yrtillar,2ughilv Viscount Castlereagh,
LORD CASTLEREAGH, S TRAVELs.--We are re-
Egypt, Nubia, Arabia
PeAtrcea,
quested to state that Mr. Coll)orn has this day published
M.P., in two vols.. post Svc., illustrao:l with numerous En-
gravings, from original dri!wiugs taken or, the spot. Mr.
Journey
Palestine,to D
Coil-m/111as also just published the Tcrith Vllume of MiFs
Sticklir.d's - Lives [if the Qtz:.:.ns et England -" gnd,
" ilenfoirs., of I,..idy Strldilii, alai of the C,)kirt of 'Queen ':9-
roline, Consort of GPorge II.," '4) 341,::• Thoms.:,n, two vo!'..
post Bvo., with Portraits.
We regret to state that Dr. VV hitley, 'one- of the
district surgeons, died yesterday from - typhus fever, Caught
in the dioharge of his professional duties.--Lioerpooipaper,