The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-25 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 25,' 1856.

No allusion has at yet been made in. Parlia-
ment to the terms of .the " Precious Treaty,"
Which are now generally known and commented
on. Ministers desire to postpone the discussion
to the latest possible moment ; to delay and pro-
crastinate while auy excuse can be offered. They
are by no means insensible to the state of public
opinion, and must feel rather uneasy at the pro-
spect of an impeachment ; which, although un-
usual in modern times, may still be resorted to
in cases of political turpitude. We believe that
they are not the chief delinquents, but they are
the parties primarily responsible, who must
answer to the country for the sacrifice of its
honour and its interests.

We fear that the interchange of Imperial and
Royal visits between France and England was by
no means so beneficial to the Allied nations as
was supposed at the time. We scarcely think
that quite so cordial a reception would now be
given to NAPOLEON the Third as he received
twelve months ago. He was then associated with
England in carrying out objects supposed to be for
the promotion of the cause of liberty and civilisa-
tion all over the world. He was not then solely
actuated by a desire to consolidate and strengthen
a new dynasty, and to conciliate despots, and, if
possible, induce them to rally round the cradle of
an Imperial infant. No selfish motives were then
manifested, and he obtained the enthusiastic
greeting which he deserved ; nor had he displayed
the " Germanic" tendencies which have since
been exhibited.

The private and confidential conferences that took
place were by no means calculated to advance the
welfare of the Peoples. German models were
exalted, and we can recognise the results in the
systematic efforts made to degrade and humiliate
the British Parliament, and to extinguish the in-
dependent press in Belgium—probably as the fore-
runner of a similar onslaught on the liberty of
journalism in this country.
We have this day extracted from a morning
contemporary a report of a speech made by Count
WALEWSKI to the Congress of which he was the
President, fcr the purpose of endeavouring to
"gag" journalism throughout Europe—Fiat expe-
rimentum corpore Belgium_ xaay safely be
threatened, because she is unable to defend
herself, and therefore the fundamental and
constitutional laws of the country must be
sacrificed at the dictation of a foreign poten-
tate. But does not every Englishman feel that
the admonition is practically addressed to this
country ? Would be not at once acknowledge
the applioability of the declaration, de to fabula
narratur ? If the laws of Belgium do not em-
power its Government to repress what Count
WALEWSKI is pleased to term " the excesses of
the ,press"—if it is unable to take the initiative
in a reform which he considers " absolutely indis-
pensable," the English Government is placed in
a similar category, and every threat of a resort
to physical force—which was more than hinted
at, is directed as well against Great Britain as
against Belgium ; and most assuredly, Lo
matter what party may
hold office, the people
of England will notsubmit to a remonstrance
which, as Count WALEWSKI candidly acknow-
ledged, may greatly " resemble a threat."
It would be well for LOUIS NAPOLEON to re-
member that Kings and Emperors are made for
the benefit of Peoples—not Peoples for their
rulers. " The greatest good to the greatest num-
ber" is a principle still recognised, at all events in
Great Britain. The lesson may also be useful
nearer heme. The Prince Consort may beneficially
learn that "England for the English, and not for
the Germans," has become a household word, re-
cognised thtougbout the length and breadth of
the laud. We have our Oleil.l timellououred con- ,

titu€iom and fundamental law, which we
shall not alter to suit Coburg tastes. In
these matters he will find the People eminently
conservative. There will be "no surrender,"
anti Prussian alliances or French co-operation will
not induce us to yield a particle of those privi-
leges which are identified with the freedom and
liberty of the people. England shall still remain
the sanctuary of the oppressed—the place of re-
fuge for political fugitives from every country.
Although we may not agree with all their opi-
nions, or sympathise with their aspirations, so
long as they conduct themselves properly and
violate no law, they shall not be expelled from
the British dominions.
It is now of peculiar importance that Parlia-
ment should closely and strictly scrutinise the
Treaty in all its details, and investigate the causes
that led to the acceptance of terms in every re-
spect so inadequate, and so far beneath what
might have been obtained. Something should he
done, while there is yet time, to avoid the im-
pending danger, and which may lead to conse-
quences by no means agreeable to the parties con-
cerned.

Nothing can tend more effectually to bring
the majesty of the law into contempt and disre-
pute than the passing of enactments that can•
not be enforced—and which are not even calcu-
lated to be generally respected. The prohibition
which can be safely disregarded, and the violation
whereof brings with it neither punishment nor
disgrace, is, at best, a mere brutum fulmen, which
should forthwith be expunged from the national
statute book. Such is the case with the Marriage
Act of 1835. The Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the state and operation of the law of
marriage as relating to the prohibited degrees of
affinity, not only declared that the obnoxious
statute " had failed to attain its object," but also
expressed a serious doabt " whether any measure
of a prohibitory character would be effectual,"
emphatically adding—" These marriages will take
place when a concurrence of circumstances give
rise to mutual attachment; they are not depend-
ent on legislation." To demonstrate the inutility
of such enactments, the pious Prelate and
eminent gentlemen who had so closely investigated
the subject in all its details, made the following
declaration of their deliberate opinions—" We are
not inclined to think, that such attachment and
marriages would be extensively increased in num-
ber were the law to permit them ; because, as we
have said, it is not the state of the law, prohibitory
or permissive, which has governed, or as we think,
ever will effectually govern, them."
The enactment being thus practically invalid—
not preventing the contracting of such marriages,
which would not even be materially increased in
number were they expressly sanctioned and recog-
nised—should at once be repealed. It is exceed-
ingly impolitic to let the notion get abroad that
any law may be "more honoured in the breach
than in the observant-," or that it may be habi-
tually and systematically disregarded with im-
punity.

The only parties who can by a possibility be
injured are the innocent offspring,. the helpless
children who may, without any fault of their
own, be deprived of the inheritance of their fore-
fathers, and branded with ignominy, that should
rather fall on the legislators who assented to so
iniquitous an Act, than on its youthful victims.
The question has been argued on two perfectly
distinct grodnds—on the Divine law, and on that
of social expediency. If there were any clear or
express Scriptural prohibition, the matter would
at once be disposed of ; but so far from that being
the case, the 18th Leviticus, v. 18, which has been
generally referred to, affords the strongest argu-
ment in favour of the lawfulness of such marriages
—"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister
to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the
the other, in her life-time." This law was pro-
mulgated when polygamy was not only sanctionel,
but almost universally practised. Dr. OHILMERS,
no mean authority on Scriptural questions, de-
clared " the prohibition was only against marrying
a wife's sister during the life-time of the first wife,
which of itself implies a liberty to marry the sister
after her death." We might multiply authorities
on this part of the case, might cite opinions of
distinguished Prelates and Judges, but it is un-
necessary to do so. The theological ground,
which in 1835, at the time of the passing of the
obnoxious Act, was erroneously and without due
examination assumed to be conclusive, has, as we
recently stated, long since been generally and
definitively abandoned, and the advocates for re-
striction have been compelled to shift their ground
to the more convenient one of " expediency," on
which they are compelled to make a final stand.

On this point, too, we are are prepared to join
issue with them, in the broadest and most exten-
sive signification of the phrase. Bat first let the
question be placed on a right foundation. It is
not whether the marriage is expedient, but is its
prohibition expedient ? It is not whether it is
the most desirable union possible (although we
believe it may be argued on that ground), but is
it so reprehensible in itself, so injurious to the
best interests of society in general,• or of the
orphan children of the widower, that it must be
forbidden at any cost—even that of bringing
about a systematic violation of the law ? Many
marriages may be unwise and inexpedient which
could not, therefore, be prohibited. A marriage
between persons of different ranks, or where there
is a great disparity of years, would naturally be
regarded as very injudicious ; but could any
general law bo framed against them, rendering
them null and void ab initi9 ?

That is the real question, and although we
may enter into a -wider view of the important
subject, the advocates of liberty of action in the
most sacred and interesting relation of life should
not be restricted in the fair discussion of the only
point in which the Legislature can deal with it.
Experience teaches us that whenever these
anions are legal, that is to say, in every
Protestant country of the world excepting Eng-
land, they are regarded as the most eligible and
praiseworthy that can be contracted. J u lge
STORY, one of the most eminent jurists that ever
lived, declared that "so far from being doubtful
they are deemed the very best sort of marriages ;"
adding—" In my whole life I never heard the
slightest suggestion against them funded on
moral or domestic considerations." Dr. ADLER.,
an unexceptionable authority on everything con-
nected with the Mosaic law, while decl firing that
there is not the least doubt as to their being sanc-
tioned by the Divine law, adds, that in Olden-
burg and Hanover, where they are frequent,
" they had almost invariably proved happy ;"
and ROBERT SOUTHEY, while declaring the law to
be " an abominable relic of ecclesiastical tyranny,"
had no hesitation in saying that "of all second
marriages they are the most suitable, and likely
to be the most frequent if the law did not some-
times prevent them."

But why multiply evidence ? It requires not
the citation of eminent names to prove what is
perceptible to any man of common under-
standing. It stands to reason that the
aunt of the orphan children, who had learned
parentis even be, to Wye them: and to act in, /coo

fore the assumption of a new relationship, would
treat them with greater kindness and considera-
tion than a mere stranger, who regards them as
rivals for the affections which she desires to see
exclusively devoted to herself and her own off-
spring. On every part of the case, the bill brought
forward by Lord ST. GERMANS should receive
the Legislative sanction. It is at the same time
just and politic. If carried, it will prevent the
habitual disregard of the statutory enactments—
will prevent the conflict of laws between diffe-
rent parts of the United Kingdom—of seeing
marriages recognised at one side of the Tweed
which are illegal at the other—of seeing children
of similar marriages legitimate if the nuptials have
been celebrated in some countries, while they are
debarred of their birthrights if their parents could
not afford a trip to the Continent—thus render-
ing it, after all, a mere matter of £ s. d., making
one law for the rich and another for the poor.
These are matters that should be avoided, and
the passing of the bill introduced by Lord ST.
GERMANS will remove this anomaly, and render
justice to many of our fellow-subjects, truly
described as persons "of religious and moral
character," who would not appear in opposition to
any reasonable law. We cannot conclude without
directing attention to the numerous and unanswer-
able authorities cited in the address of " The Mar-
riage Law Reform Association," which will be found
in another part of this day's impression. Let any
person who may retain any scruple on the point
peruse these evidences without bias or prejudice,
and say, if he can, that the unnatural and un-
equitable restrictions should any longer remain
a blot on the national escutcheon—a disgrace to
the British statute-book.
r '
_ _

It is a somewhat awkward comment on the
operation of the system of limited competition
for employment in the civil service that it mul-
tiplies patronage, does not prevent the intrusion
of a large proportion of wholly incompetent can-
didates, and to a great extent excludes from com-
petition the members of a class richest in official
qualifications.
The great evil of the old system was that it
was made an instrument of Parliamentary cor•
ruption. Candidates for seats in Parliament, or
members fishing for re-election, had it in their
power to offer a quid pro quo to voters who
shrank from barefaced bribery—places in the
Customs or Excise for their sons or relatives
for their support at the poll. This, however,
could only be done with a few, the number of
officials required being limited, and unpleasant
consequences arising from more promises being
made than could be fulfilled. Under the present
system both members of Parliament and Govern-
ment may be said to have their patronage more
than doubled—the nominations, to which we know
of no limit, greatly ex3eeding the appointments.
True, the patronage is of an inferior quality, but
not unlikely, we conceive, to be quite as effective
for evil as that which is abolished.

That the selection of a superior class of candi-
dates is not insured is evident from the instances
adduced by Lord GODERICH. It surely says little
for limited competition that in the Customs, out
of 106 candidates, 42, or more than one-third,
should have been rejected for the , grossest igno-
rance ; and at the Admiralty, out of '54
candidates, 19, or a like proportion, should
have been sent back on the same grounds ;
and this with a large sand highly intelligent mid-
dle class, full of anxiety for the disposal of their
sons, but too high-spirited to truckle per-
sonal independence for their preferment. The
fact speaks for itself, and pronounces the condem-
nation of the, system of limited competition. It
not only preserves and multiplies patronage, but
it excludes a meritorious class, and practically
limits the chances of the country being well served,
far from the character of the rejected candidates
that of the accepted may not unfairly be inferred.
On the face of it the principle of limited competition
is a blunder, all the arguments in defence of which,
we will add, may readily be disposed of. No
complicated machinery is necessary to exe!ude
incompetent candidates. All that is required may
be found in every parish, to be exercised without
fear and without favour. The only difficulty in
the way is the evil, from the effects of which the
country has suffered so severely, and which Admi-
nistrative Reformers would give the coup de grace.
The position of the advocates of open competition
is unassailable--the larger the number of eligible
candidates the better the opportunity to select
high-class servants, high alike in character, adap-
tability, and talent.