The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-26 00:00:00

LOND o:N, MONDAY

and weary crew may find shelter and safety.
Should we be angry because men-of-war may also
lie at anchor—we who have expended so much
money on the works at Alderney, which, it seems
to be generally admitted, can scarcely be made
available for commercial purposes, and who are
loudly calling for other harbours along the coast ?
French journalists might just as well complain
of the harbour at Newhaven, which we shortly
hope to see completed, as our English contempo-
raries of the works of Cherbourg, because either,
although useful in peace, would likewise be bene-
ficial in war.

But we are told that Cherbourg Harbour will
enable France to maintain a Channel Fleet.
Very well. Why should it not be so ? She is
surely just as well entitled to do so as we are.
We must not for a moment suppose that the very
natural desire to obtain something approximating
to equality in maritime affairs is to be regarded as
a significant hint that there is an inten-
tion of invading our shores, and reducing
Great Britain to the condition of a French pro-
vince. It would seem as if, in the present
instance, "the wish were father to the thought ;"
or rather, the desire to embarrass the Government
was so great as to overcome every feeling of
patriotism. . Such excitements are easily produced
when persons are sufficiently reckless not to cal-
culate the consequences. We may, however, ven-
ture to remind the Times, that undue suspicion
and distrust have frequently produced the
dreaded results, which could never have occurred
but for the folly of those under the influence,
for tLe time being, of " the green-eyed monster."
Let us avoid this grave mistake, and by cordial
and friendly co-operation show that England has
uo paltry jealousies, but, can sincerely rejoice at
anything calculated to promote the interest or the
glory of La Belle France, as adding to the powers
which she hopes to be associated with her own in
the cause of justice and civilisation.

The middle classes must thank the Lords for
the compliment impliedly paid to their virtue on
Friday night, while they will certainly not relax
the demand that they shall not be fettered to
keep our Peers from vice. Several noble lords,
including the Archbishop of CANTERBURY,
affirmed that the ladies in their circle are all
opposed to a widower being permitted, by law, to
marry his wife's sister and his motherless chil-
dren's aunt. These lathes fear, they say, all sorts
of evil consequences from such a permission. T.
this they add that "it is a middle class question ;"
and certainly the ladies of the middle classes,
whose feminine instincts are at least as pure and
refined as those of the higher classes, not only are
not opposed to the object of Lord BURY'S
Bill, but are strongly favourable to it.
The inevitable inference is that tile balar_ce of
confidence in their lords and in their own
sisters, lies with the ladies of the middle classes.
These classes have no fear whatever of any abuses
of the liberty conceded to their sisters and their
husbands, by nature, by the Mosaic law, and by
the Gospel. Why the ladies of noble lords tremble
so, we must leave their lordships to tell. We have
indeed a suspicion, after all, that the single sisters
of peeresses are not worse than their ladyships
who fear them ; and though we ought to suppose
that peers themselves know themselves best, we
yet are unwilling to imagine them in serious dan-
ger from familiar association with their sistere-ins
law. In the majority of cases we are sure that
noble lords accept such an argument as a parade
argument merely. They know of no basis of fact.
Not a peer would say that he knew of a
single lady, or married gentleman, among
his acquaintance, to whom this discreditable argu-
ment was relevant. As to excluding the aunt
from the house after the wife's death, the answer
is obvious enough. The very object of the bill is
to give her a home there, if desirable for the
children's sake ; and we altogether deny that any
modest single woman, merely because an artificial
law prohibited marriage when GOD and nature
do not, could feel that that law alone enabled her
to reside where otherwise she could not with pro-
priety do se. A. law must have religious, moral,
or social sanction to permit of a woman's availing
herself of its protection.
The Scriptural argument seems to be more and
more generally given up. The Bishops, of course,
tried hard to justify their worthle3s canons—canons
which they themselveskeep not—by Scripture, but
we certainly need not follow them there. They
appealed to the law of MOSES, and to that wrongly
interpreted, the descendants of ABRAHAM and the
common sense of laymen, and sound criticism toe,
being judges. But how, and by what argument
can they defend picking and selecting particular
Jewish laws as more binding on us than others ?
Admitting for argument's sake that their inter-
pretation of Leviticus or Deuteronomy is right,
we cannot for the life of us understand, since
these books are equally and throughout of Divine
origin, how we are at liberty to turn some of
their precepts into Canons and Acts of Parliament
and to reject others. We consider none of
the laws contained in them as binding on us, be-
cause they were delivered to the Jews ; but if we
are wrong, then by all means let the Bishops
bring in a bill forthwith to establish cir-
cumcision, and let them, in their own
reverend persons, set the example of first submit-
ting to the rite. Let us not pretend to honour
GOD'S Word by selecting only such precepts as
suit us. All Leviticus or none, ace say; since
to whomsoever GOD gave it as law He gave it to
be wholly obeyed.
Most of the speakers, indeed, relied on other
arguments. They pretended that it was incest
and, knowing that to Jae difficult ground, the
Bishop of OXFORD, himself, assorted that incest
was not a natural vice, but the creature of enact-
ment ! Lord REDESDALE, however, affirmed that
"the mind naturally revolted from such unions,"
and other Noble Lords appealed to feminine
instincts. The two lines of argument cut each
other's throats. We wholly disbelieve in arti-
ficial sins, such as the Oxford and Sfe Barnabas
School are so fond of creating ; and we believe,
on the other hand, that in a case like this the natu-
ral instincts of our race are sufficient. We might
with perfect safety leave the whole question of for-
bidden degrees to the teaching of both male and
female instincts, to the teachings of social sentiments,
and to the teachings of the religious community to
which men belong. It is the natural sentiments
which practically guide the thoughts of all persons
on this subject even now. Not an individual in
a thousand knows more about the " prohibited
degrees" than he does about Chancery law, if so
much. With few exceptions, the prohibitions are
simply ludicrous, because no one needs them ; and
as to the artificial ecclesiastical exceptions, persons
will not, and =aril-, feel them binding ou their

consciences.
The Bishop of EXETER " waxed fierce and
furious." The Bishop of Mrox has evidently not
oat his brains through the afflatus received by
ordination, and through entering the line of
A.pOstolical succession. He declared that the
most that could be said was that Scripture
was doubtful ; that this being the case it
cuzht to be left to each man's conscience to