The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-17 00:00:00

never sheltered himself under au anonymous letter.— !
Mr. Young had said that the French army was as brave
as any in the world, and that flogging was not resorted
to. He (Sir Charles Napier)' admitted that the French
army was brave, though it hail always been beaten by the
English. But they were to bear in mind that the
French army was differently composed from curs. Men
were raised there by the conscription, which extended to
all classes of the people, from the noble to the peasant.
Whereas our army was recruited from the manufacturing
towns, and frequently from those persons who enlisted
from idleness, and chose the army as an escape
from the labours of industry.—(Hear, hear.) But
in the French navy, what were the punishments? He
would tell them what he had seen. The punishment
was, when a man committed a fault, to tie a number of
shot to his legs, and then let him drop from the yard-
arm into the sea, as deep as the shot would sink him.—
(Shame, shame.) A man would suffer three or four dips
of that sort ; and was that a punishment which they
would wish to see introduced into the British Navy ?
(No, no.) Mr. Young had acquired his knowledge of
naval affairs in a four months' voyage, in a merchant
ship, with a crew of thirty or forty men. But could he
suppose that the same discipline would suffice in a ship
of war, with a crew of six or seven hundred men, like
the Powerful, as in such a craft ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr.
Young said that the name of the merchant ship was
the Victory, and he hoped, therefore, to have victory
to-night ; but his (Corn. N.'s) ship was the Powerful,
which, he doubted not, would make a prize of the Vie-
tory.—(Great cheering and laughter.) He would not say
that Mr. Young perverted what he had said on the sub-
ject of the Poor-laws, but he would repeat what he did
say, and he had never varied what he said at all the
meetings, nor would he 'vary it for all the votes in Mary-
lebone.-ACheers.) When he was one of the Poor-law
guardians in his own district, they set the mandates of
the Commissioners at defiance, and allowed 6s. a week
to the aged poor in out-door relief.—(Cheers.) He said
that where that relief was not granted, and the condi-
tion of the poor was not ameliorated, it was the fault of.
the guardians. He had said, also, that those who were
obliged to go into the workhouses ought to find that a
place of refuge and comfort, like Chelsea or Greenwich
Hospital, and not a prison. This he now repeated for the
sixteenth time.—(Loud cheers.) He would not go the
length of repealing the new Poor-law, because he
thought the abuses of the abuses of the old system were
destroying the poor, and destroying the country ; but
he was not favourable to the continuance of the Com-
missioners, as he did not think them necessary. But he
could assure the meeting that neither Mr. Young nor
any other man would go further than he would to secure
protection, comfort, tranquillity, and happiness to the
aged and industrious poor.—(Vehement cheering.) He
also disapproved as much as any man of plurality and
proxy voting.—(Hear.) As to the part of the Poor-laws
on which Mr. Young had touched with eloquence and
feeling, he would only say that he thought the law was
formerly and against the man, and now it was worse
against the woman.—(Hear.) He would do everything
in his power to correct the injustice.— *Cheers.) rAs to
the rate-paying clauses, they were the worst parts of the
Reform Bill, and he would do his best to get them re-
moved.—(Cheers.) What he had said upon the subject
of an extension of the suffrage was, that so large a
portion of those who now had the power of being elec-
tors were afraid to use their rights for want of the pro-
tection of the ballot, that he thought it useless to en-

large the franchise until they first—got the ballot. lie
was, as he had already told the electors, much more than
a Whig. But he approved of much that the Whigs had
done. They had given the country the Reform Bill,
only for which he should not have had the honour of ap-
pearing before the meeting on that occasion.—(Cheers.)
They had passed the Corporation Reform Bill, and
other useful measures, which they would have made
better if the Tories had allowed them.—(Hear, hear.)
He would support them, if he should be returned, in every
measure of reform and improvement, and especially in
the destruction of every monopoly in the kingdom, as
well as of the corn, timber, and sugar monopolies.—
(Cheers.) If they did not go on in that way, he would
do as much to oppose them as any civilian in the king-
dom.—(Cheers.) He had also stated before that he
would support. a property tax, and the abolition of Church-
rates. He considered the former thetmost just of all taxes,
and the latter a most unjust, impolitic, and irreligious
impost, because no man ought to be required to pay for
a Church to the doctrines of which he was opposed.—
(Cheers.) He found he had now ten minutes to spare,
but he had rather go to action—(Cheers and laughter)—
and he had not the smallest doubt that the result of their
ballot world be to secure the return of two Reformers.
The Gallant Commodore then sat down amidst the most
enthusiastic cheers and cries of the " Ballot."

This was immediately proceeded with, and the electors
came pouring in crowds from all parts of the borough to
the poll.
At ten o'clock the poll was closed, and the theatre,
boxes and all, and even to the back of the spacious stage,
was crowded to excess. We have no doubt that 3,000
persons were by this time crammed into the building,
whilst a great crowd was collected in the street, anxious
to hear the result.

At a quarter past eleven o'clock,
The CHAIRMAN announced the total number of elec-
tors, who had polled, to be—
For Sir C. Napier
For Mr. Young .

1,931
945

MAJORITY FOR SIR C. NAPIER.... 956
The announcement was received with prodigious cheer-
ing and some hissing. Mr. Young and the Gallant
Commodore stood on each side of the Chairman, and
cordially shook hands amidst reiterated cheering.
Mr. YOUNG then said, that having polled nearly one
thousand votes, he hoped that was sufficient to justify
him in supposing that he was supported by a large body
of the Reformers.—(Hear, hear.) But he would now
abide by his pledge, and give every support in his power
to Commodore Napier—(Cheers)—and he called on all
his friends to do the smile. The Hon. Gentleman was
enthusiastically cheered.
Sir C. NAPIER then came forward and thanked the
electors for the honour they had done him. lie had next
to thank Mr. Young for his honourable and sincere con-
duct throughout the day's proceedings ; and if he (Sir
C. Napier) should be called away upon the service of his
country he hoped the electors would give him (Mr.
Young) his due, and return him to Parliament.—(Cries
of " You're both trumps.") He recommended the electors
that although they had now a fair prospect of beating
the Tories, who would retire from the field if they saw
that meeting, yet unwearied exertion was still necessary
to secure the victory.—(Cheers.)
Thanks were then voted with vast applause to the
Chairman, whO, in' acknowledging the compliment, said
that he had been one of the, twelve Members of Par-
liament who voted for the ballot on Mr. O'Connell's
motion—(Cheers)—and the proceedings of this day more
than ever convinced him of the efficiency of that mode
of voting. Hehighiy cornplimental the two candidates
on their candid and honourable conduct, and was loudly
cheered.

After several rounds of cheers for Napier and Young
alternately the meeting separated.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN

AND THE LAW OF MARRIAGE.

TO THE 'EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,---You are at liberty to refer to me as approving
of the abolitions of the restrictions on marriage to which
you allude.

As no clear and strong case has been made out of
important advantage to the public from such restrictions,
I stake my stand on the broad general principle that
every restriction is an evil in its4l; that political liberty
(a; Paley observes) consists in a man's being subject to
no restriction that is not counterbalanced by a greater
amount of public advantage : that the general rule, ac-
cordingly, should be to let-every one do as he pleases,
the burden of proof lying upon the advooates of any
restriction to show its necessity.
This principle, when stated generally, most persons
will, I think, admit. They would acknowledge that a
man ought not to be deprived of his liberty of action
merely on the ground that he might not make that use of
his liberty which all, or the majority, of bis neighbours,
might think the best, but merely when some serious
positive detriment was likely to arise to the public or to
his neighbours.
In particular instances, however, men are sometimes
apt to lose sight of this principle. In the present case,
for example, if, although several worthy and respectable
persons (as is undoubtedly the fact) approve of the mar-
riages in question, a considerable majority, as is probably
and natural resultdisapprove
sof them,houldbe,
the case, r
rthink thes sh fairuld
hsaotmt he os m mighta
be prohibited, on the ground that the minority should
give way to the majority.
Now , I should consider
this a case of oppression of the
minority by the
majority—which is no less unjust than the
converse
converse case. I should say
that the fair and natural
a
result would be (supposing -lways no clear case of public
inconvenience to be made out)
be left at liberty. Those who approve
that both parties should
mar-
riage would then be free to contr of such a
it when they might
athink pro
fropm it.er ; and those who disapproved of it might
b
What may be called a meddling system of government,
amounts practically to a most intolerable tyranny. If the
_Legislature of a country consisted of the amnony. s
disin-
terestedt and public-spirited men, but who should
thiiik
it their duty to compel by law every individual to do
everything that might seem to them best, and to prohibit
' every one from taking any step which they might not
think advisable, it would be found, I.believe, that even
the government of selfish oppressors would be preferred
to this.
And yet, I believe, in the present case, the question
appears to many men's minds to be, whether the mar-
riage with a deceased wife's sister be or be not desirable.
Suppose it decided in the negative ; most people would
decide also against the desirableness of a marriage where
there was a very447reat disparity of years or of station, or
where there i a .taint of insanity, or other hereditary
disease, or where thee is adequate provision for chil-
dren,' no
&c. Yet how intolerable would be a system of
legislation which, in these and similar cases, should un-
dertake to prescribe the conduct of every individual. A
society so governed would resemble those children who,
;:o insure their straight and perfect growth, are from
their infancy so swaddled, bandaged, and ironed, as ef-
fectually to prevent the full development and. free use of
all their members.
I have been proceeding all along on the supposition
that no sufficiently strong case has been made out to jus-
tify departure in this matter from the general rule of
non-restriction.

As for the allegations from the Levitical law, if any
one brings them forward in sincerity, he should be pre-
pared to advocate adherence to it in all points alike ;
among others, the compulsory marriage of a brother
with his deceased brother's widow,
The only objection, which, at the first glance, appears
to have any plausibility, would bey perceived, I think, on
a very little reflection, to be extremely feeble—namely, the
supposed advantage (under the prohibition of such mar-