The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-22 00:00:00

upon both sides have felt perfectly secure that

this time there would really and truly be " no mis-
take" in the matter, but that the session would not
come to an end before a most salubrious and

sweeping measure of reform had cleared away a
thousand anomalies and countless abuses from the

laws relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
Parliament is now only in its third week, this
present Friday is only the seventeenth day since the
session of 1861 commenced, and already Sir R.
BETHELL'S new Bankruptcy Bill has advanced far
on its way to the moment when it shall be formally
enrolled upon the Statute Book as a substantial
enactment. Laid upon the table of the House by
t its author and introducer, the Atterney-General—
I read (pro forma and as a matter of course) a first

time—read (not simply as a matter of course, but
really in consideration of its many great and ob-
vious merits) a second time—it has now already
made good the chief part of its way through Com-

mittee. As affording a token of how much in
earnest the Attorney-General is, the Cabinet is,
the House is, in advancing this great law reform in
regard to Bankruptcy and Insolvency, it is only neces-
sary to glance at the progress the measure made in
Committee last evening. Clause after clause from
the 51st to the 117th was passed—sixty-seven
clauses in all—sixty-seven clauses (every one of
them of more or less importance) in the course of
one sitting! And amongst these sixty-seven clauses

—clause 81 !—that just and admirable clause which
secures the assimilation henceforth of traders and
non-traders, subjecting both to the provisions of
the new act of Bankruptcy. Vainly yesterday
did Sir GEORGE BOWTER propose the postpone-
ment of this clause upon the plea of its being one
involving as, in point of fact, almost
every individual clause in the whole of
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S Bill unquestionably
does involve to a greater or lesser degree " very
important principles of jurisprudence." Vainly
did Colonel DUNNE urge that this clause (so pecu-
liarly obnoxious to some overweening sticklers for
the maintenance of what is called the landed inte-
rest) should be set aside for the time until the Com-
mittee should have received an explanation from
those whose feelings towards the landed interest
they could trust. Clause 81 was passed inexorably
through Committee, nevertheless, notwithstand-
ing! And so too was the next one, clause 82, the one
relating more particularly to an act of bankruptcy
by a non-trader—Sir HUGH CAIRNS vainly opening
the artillery of his legal arguments upon it in
formidable opposition. One after another the
objections raised against this clause were dissipated
by the logic of the Attorney-General. How effec-
tually—one clause selected haphazard will suffice
to indicate. Take, for example, the specious and
ingenious objection raised by Mr. SEYMOUR FITZ-
GERALD, thus succinctly recapitulated, and after-
wards summarily disposed of by Sir RICHARD
BETHELL : who observed, " His right hon. friend
the member for Horsham had said that it would.
be quite sufficient for a creditor to swear an affidavit
that he believed his creditor to be going or re-
maining abroad to defeat or:delay his creditors, and
that the bare expression of that belief would entitle
the creditor to an adjudication in bankruptcy. He
begged to assure his right hon. friend that he had
been misinformed, and that in truth there was no
instance of any tribunal having arrived at such a
conclusion from any such premises ; for every court
would require some proof, by an overt act, of the
malus animus of the individual in going abroad.
There was nothing in the English law so monstrous
as that of the bare belief of the creditor entitling
him to adopt such a proceeding." Henceforth,
therefore, traders and non-traders, being assimi-
lated, as they ought in reason long since to have
been assimilated, we may presume that the old,
delightful, but discreditable system of levant-
ing will go out of fashion as completely, let us
say, as duelling or hair-powder. The " Gentleman
of England who live at home at ease," and not only
at ease, but with honour to themselves, with advan-
tage to all around them—will not have, henceforth,
to be contrasted with th• Gentlemen-Vagabonds of
England who live abroad in luxury to their own
infamy and to the ruin of the unfortunate creditors
from whom they have escaped. It goes well then,
obviously, with the new Bankruptcy Bill, every-
thing considered. Clause 81 and clause 82 having
been passed, the worst dangers also have been
passed by the growing enactment. And we shall
soon have, doubtless, the opportunity of witness-
ing it so powerfully borne up on that strong
wave of Public Opinion (wittily spoken of by Lord
JOHN RUSSELL when alluding to the only rea-
sonable prospect there can ever exist of a new
Reform Bill) that it may be safely carried over
the Bar of the House of Lords. However else this
session may be wasted, it is not likely to be wasted
(thanks to Sir RICHARD BETHELL) in respect to
the national hope of a comprehensive reform in
the law of Bankruptcy.

The reply of Lord JOHN RUSSELL to Lord E.
HOWARD last night, in reference to cruelties
said to have been perpetrated by the Sardinian
army, shows strongly the mischievous results of
French intervention both at Gaeta and at Rome.
Every one who sifted, as he best could, the accounts
which appeared in the papers from time to time,
had little doubt that bands of brigands—furnished
with the means of doing it from Gaeta while the
French fleet protected the place, and from Rome,
notwithstanding French troops occupied the city
and its territory—stole across the borders of the
Papal domains, and in larger or smaller bands per-
petrated all kinds of outrages in the name of
" Royalist reaction." The policy was much of a
piece with that which, when the country welcomed
GARIBALDI with in en arms, turned loose upon it
all the scum of the prisons, as a parting blessing.
There can be no doubt of the correctness of our
Foreign Secretary's statements ; in addition to the
sources of information open to every one, he has
the responsible servants of the country in Italy,
and the counter statement of the servants of the
ex-King of NAPLES and of the King of SARDINIA,
to compare, and we must, therefore, believe that
what had been previously accepted as fact, was
really so. As his Lordship observed, to preach
humanity to the Sardinian Government in dealing
with villains who could put out men's eyes and
roast them to death before their own fire, would be
to insult them. All trustworthy narratives spew
that the army of the King of SARDINIA has been
as moderate in victory as brave in conflict. But
these hired villains of Cardinal ANTONELLI and
FRANCIS 11. are infinitely worse wretches than the
Chinese murderers of their unfortunate priso-
ners ; since, apart from the treachery in which
ANTONELLI'S Own would not suffer by comparison,
the Chinese after all did but treat our brave men
as they would have treated their own prisoners.

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL says that encouragement
still continues to be given to these brigands. We
can believe anything of the butchers of Perugia ;
but the question is how long will Louis NAPOLEON
persist in making himself 'responsible for these dis-
gusting outrages ? While relieved from fear by
the presence of French soldiers, the POPE, or rather
ANTONELLI, to whom he seems to have sold him-
self, will, in spite and malice against the King of
ITALY, encourage these wicked disturbances.

Surely, it w ere far better that the POPE and the
Italians sha uld settle their own relations, than
that; by fore ible intervention, the latter should be
hindered in, putting down the horrid brigandage
which unsettles the country. We repeat the hope
we have befare expressed, that Lord JOHN will
persevere strenuously, as well as boldly, in the
course which the Blue-book shows that he has
commenced 'mil—that of protesting against the
prolonged or.xupation of Rome by an army which
has no right there, and which is unavoidably the
abettor of brigandage.

Once more through the Nigh Church pertinacity
of the Lords, the House of Commons is compelled
to take up, de novo, the subject of marriage with a
deceased wife's sister. In a matter of domestic, and
in some respects pressing interest, like this, it is
not fair for the Peers, by the mere force of votes,
to oppose longer the representatives of the people.
Let it be remembered that the case is not one of
imposing any burden on the unwilling or the con-
scientious. No one proposes to legislate, as the
Divine Author of Judaism did in the parallel case,
that a brother shall marry a brother's widow. It
is simply asked that those wbo believe Scripture
and reason to be on their side shall not be visited
with heavy social and pecuniary penalties for using
their right of priv.'tte judgment—the judgment in
this case coinciding with that of the vast majority
of Protestants at home and abroad. Controversy
on the subject has quite settled the point, that the
existing prohibition has no justification but a
worthless canon, and the well•known lists in our
prayer-book. We need not say that with the
exception of a few High Churchmen neither
of these authorities is any authority at all.
But as the Lords have not been asked to compel
persons to marry, so they bare not been asked to
compel any clergyman to marry those whom he
thinks it would be sinful to marry. If the Canon,
and the Prayer-book lists are an authority as
sacred to him as the Koran to Mahomedans, he is
not even wished to violate them. Such simple
remarks seem necessary, because really some of the
warm opponents argue as if it were proposed to
inflict a burden, instead of removing one, or to
violate a High Church conscience, instead of leaving
it at full liberty—the only demand made by those
who think the marriages in question natural,
advantageous, and Scriptural, is expressed in the
exclamation of the Apostle—" Why is my liberty
judged of another man's conscience ?"

It has always appeared to us that this question
is, at its root, one of religious persecution or
tolerance. No one can pretend that but for
the Canons and the Prayer-book, any mortal
would have dreamed of a prohibition so essen-
tially absurd and indefensible. It originated
in an age of asceticism, and has been perpetuated
by ecclesiastical tradition. But without dwelling
on its origin, the fact is, that the Church of Eng-
land accepted it when just emerging from the cor-
ruptions of Popery, and that even the opinions of
her own sons, and some of the most eminent of
them, too, have been adverse to the restriction.
But outside the Church of England that is
amongst half the worshipping population of the
country, so far as we have heard, opinion is unani-
mous. All the great Dissenting bodies have ex-
pressed themselves as aggrieved by the restriction ;
their ablest writers have elaborately shewn that it
has no foundation in Scripture or in reason. Many
of the most respectable amongst them, their minis-
ters and church officers, openly set at naught the
prohibition, and retain their religious standing in
their own communities ; while, as to the Church of
England, webelieve that if her laity were polled on
the subject, nine-tenths of them would laugh at the
idea of there being anything against marrying
your deceased wife's sister, but Lord LYNDHURST'S
Act as marred by the late officious Bishop of
LONDON.

In such a state of religious opinion, we ask, is
it anything short of religious persecution for a knot
of High Churchmen to use their great influence
with the large and respectable Conservative party,
to force their views of marriage on those who differ
from them. Dissenters have certainly a right to
resent this ; they ought, unquestionably, to have

immediate relief from an Act founded on a Church
of England Canon, and punishing them for disobedi
ence to it. Should the Lords again reject the bill
sent up by the Commons, we should suggest that
Dissenters immediately place in the hands of
Mr. MILNES another bill to exempt them at least
from penalties designed to enforce obedience to the
dogmas of a Church from which they dissent. We
do not see how even the Lords, who we suppose do
at least believe in the Toleration Act, could reject
such a bill.
A few facts may be mentioned showing the
progress of public opinion on the subject. Since 1849
the signatures to petitions in favour of rescinding
protection have amounted to nearly 1,000,000 ; an
amazing number when we remember the compara-
tively small number of persons directly interested.
The signatures in opposition to relaxation have been
114,204. Another remarkable fact connected
with the petitions is the character of so many
of them. Last August the Earl of CLARENDON
presented to the House of Peers petitions from
one hundred and two Corporations of England
and Wales, and twelve had previously petitioned,
in favour of relaxation of the law. These peti•
tions were numerously signed, and it will not
be denied that the signatures must have been
those of the elite of the middle cass. The Par-
liamentary progress of the bill has also been
such as ought to weigh with the Lords to concede
the point this session. In 1842 there was a
majority of 23 against the first reading ; in 1849,
when Mr. WORTLEY again introduced the mea-
sure, a majority of 34 for it on the second
reading. The majorities increased, and not to weary
the reader, the bill was carried in four Parliaments
and in thirty-one divisions. In this Parliament, on
the ith February, the number of those who had
voted in its favour was 302 ; of those who voted
against, 208 ; of neutrals, 44 ; of now members, 90.
To-night, therefore, should the opponents of the
measure go through the idle form of dividing,
the old majorities should be well sustained. We
believe, also, that, with one exception, the Lord
Chancellor, the whole Cabinet is in favour of the
bill.

in the House of Lords it has come so near to
success that we may hope this fact at least will
weigh with their house when the votes of the
other house are remembered, and dispose all the
fair and moderate opponents to withdraw from the
contest. The bill has been before their lordships'
house four times, and the voting has stood thus :-
1851. 1856. 1858. 1859.
The vote against the bill was 50 43 46 49
The vote for the bill l6 19 22 39
Bishops against the bill
Bishops for the bill — 4
Number of lay peers against 31 31 39 41
Majority against without the
bishops
So that the majority of hereditary peers against the bill in

1859 was only 6.

We have but one brief remark to add. The
Lords and Commons of England profess, and with
much truth, to be a practical legislature—to adapt
legislation to facts, not to theories—and therefore
to give up laws which are not, and will not, be