The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-18 00:00:00

SCHOOL.

Colonel FRENCH asked the Chief Commissioner of
Works if his attention had been directed to the monument
now in progress of erection at the entrance to Westmins'er
School, and inquired if he had any power to prevent such
erect ion ? _ _

Mr. COWPER said that the act relating to such subjects
required that before erecting statues in public places the
consent of the Commissioners of the Board of Works should
be consulted. This had not been done, but at the same
time, as the omission was made in ignorance of the
law, no opposition would be offered on the part
of the Commissioners in question. Certainly if he
had been consulted he would have hesitated before
giving his assent to anything so incongruous as placing
mediieval statues on classic columns.

DOCKYARDS,
Sir F. SMITH gave notice that on Tuesday next he
would call the attention of the house to the subject of her
Majesty's dockyards, and to move that it was not expedient
to expend the whole of the money that had been voted for
the purposes of the Admiralty.
TRUSTEES CHARITIES BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. SELWYN presented a petition from the
Wesleyan body against this bill as being injurious to
their interests. The hon. and learned member then
moved that the bill be committed that day six months.
He said that he had addressed the house
at such length that he would not occupy their attention to
any extent. He said that the principle on which it ap-
peared desirable to proceed in respect to these matters was
one of compromise and conciliation. Considering the
number of the Wesleyan body, he contended that the
great body of the Dissenters were as much
opposed to this bill as members of the Church of England,
and that its supporters were to be found only amongst
those political Dissenters, of whose opinions the Liberation
Society was the exponent. He contended that the opera-
tion of the bill would be most injurious to the
interests of religion, and he trusted the house
would reject so objectionable a measure. He
141 ewi th
house thoh
thought, before they nwrohciecead
wtale measureon,.(ty passed
in reference to the subject worketi. adbill, they zhc.ll,l
Mr. BEECROFT seconded the amendment, and con-
sidered that the subject proposed to be dealt with by thebill
should be left to the decision of our lawcourts. The bill was
in contravention of the intentions of these endowed chari-
ties, and it was in :fact a measure of spoliation, and an at-
tempt to sever education from religion, which would be a
most perilous experiment.
Mr. MELLOR supported the bill, the object of which he
said was merely to render eligible persons who were fitted
to discharge the duties of trustees without reference to their
particular religious tenets. He said, when he introduced a
bill on this subject, which was identical with the present,
he was not influenced by the Liberation Society, but solely
from a belief that it was carrying out fully the principle of
civil and religious liberty. He denied, as had been asserted by
the opp onents of tb.e bill , that its advocates were those who
were indifferent to the interests of religion, or who were
actuated solely by political motives. lie expressed a hope
that the house would not reject a bill of this enlightened
character.

Mr. HARDY opposed the bill at FOMO length.
Mr. DILLWYN, the mover of the bill, defended its
principle. He was desirous to adopt any course calculated
to effect conciliation, but he did not think the part taken
by the opponents of the bill calculated to lead to
that result. The bill was not one of spoliation as
had bean asserted, but would allow any honour-
able man to discharge the duties that might
be entrusted to him in regard to these charities. He pointed
out the litigation that had arisen out of the present state
of the law, by which Dissenters were excluded from the
performance of functions for which they perfectly qualified.
He, and those who agreed with him, had been accused of an
aggression on the Church, which he utterly denied : and as
regarded him, he asserted that, in bringing forward this bill,
he was onlyacting up to his:sincere convictions. He defended
also the Liberation Society from the imputations thrown on
them, and contended that the Church party were the ag-
gressors. He was a member of the Church of England, and
did not Wish to attack her temporalities, but h© considered
that the Church should assume a more humble attitude
and a more Christian spirit with respect to the remainder of
the community.
Lord R. CECIL said that the hon. member for Swansea
(Mr. Dillwyn) had defended himself but not his bill, the
case for which had entirely failed. He denied that the
effect, of this bill would be to restore harmony in reference
to these charities or be attended with the other results
ascribed t 3 it. The Dissenters according to their
own description were not animated by a de-
sire to injure the Church,' but he would ask if
the conduct of Dissenters in that house justified that de-
scription. These gentlemen, estimable as they were, were
restrained by no scruple in regard to the Church—omitted
no opportunity to assail her, and to seize her property.
He believed this was the general feeling of Dissenters, and
argued that it could not be otherwise, as they were opposed
to the Church from conviction, and, if honest, must pursue
the course he had described. In his opinion, Dissenters and
Roman Catholics if admitted to the trusteeship of these
amities would conscientiously endeavour to colour the
teaching at the schools of those foundations by their own
doctrines. He described the conduct of the Liberation
Society in regard to the Church as rsckless in the measures
adopted and the passions aroused, and contended that the
measure was in reality what it had been designated—one
of spoliation.
Mr. HADFIELD supported tile 'notion for going into
committee. Ho denied that heartburnings would result,
as had been predicted, from the operation of this bill, and
referred to the Manchester Grammar School where the
business had been transacted more efficiently since Dis-
sent ors were ad mittosl into the trusteeship. The
Dissenters by their institutions were educating the
country, and he referred to the fact that out of
the 35,000 places of worship in the kingdom, not more than
150 or 200 rectived endowment. Dissenters did not want
endowment, as it would be the greatest injury that could
be inflicted on them, and he inferred that no injury could
arise from their admission into these trusteeships.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the amendment, and main-
tained that the act introduced by Lord Cranworth had
relieved Dissenters of any just ground for complaint. The
primary intention of the founders of these trusts was to
provide religious instruction, which would be obstructed or
frustratod by this bill. He would go further, and assert
that as the bill provided that the religion to be taught
should be decided by the majority of trustees, it would vir-
tually eliminate all religious teaching from these institutions.
He appealed to the Government to offer some expression of
opinion on this subject, and to the house to reject a bill
to which even a large number of Dissenters were opposed.
This bill, though apparently very simple, was most dan-
gerous in its design, though he believed the hon. member
who introduced it was ignorant of its effects, and he felt
indebted to the Liberation Society for their attacks on the
Church, for nothing was more injurious to any question
than when it emanated from a league, who endeavoured by
noise, money, and dictation, to accomplish their object.
Mr. BALL said that, although he had previously voted
for the bill, the petitions from the Dissenters considerably
altered his opinion, but he would vote for going into com-
mittee.
Mr. HE .N.LEY said that the statement of the last speaker
was the strongest possible condemnation of this measure,
but notwithstanding he proposed to go into committee.
What the hon, memer would do if the bill even got into
committee was not clear. The arguments on this subject
had been exhausted, and nothing new had been advanced
on behalf of the bill, which in most cases was unnecessary,
and in some cases would prove most injurious. He believed
that the effect of the bill would be to multiply by a hundreds
fold instead of to diminish legislation, and he considered
great praise was due to the hon. and learned member for
the university of Cambridge.
Mr. BUXTON opposed the motion for going into com-
mittee.

Mr. WHTTESIDE voted for the amendment, and con-
tended that the bill would revolntionise the law of evidence
by introducing a principle net proved by argument, and
opposed to reason and experience.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee l7l
Against it
Majority —29
The bill was accordingly lost.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT LAW.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition signed by 50 mem-
bers of the Corporation of Birmingham and others, in
favour of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's
sister.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented 81 petitions from different
parts of the metropolis to the same effect.
Lord J. MANNERS presented petit 5... ggsrust tiny
alteration in the marriage law.
Other petitions pro and con were also presented.
Mr. HUNT then moved the following amendment :
" That, in the opinion of this house, any measure that
would have the effect of placing the law of marriage, with
regard to the prohibited degrees, on a different footing in
different parts of the United Kingdom, would be highly in-
convenient." He objected to the bill, in the first place,
because, if it were passed, there would be no less than three
different laws relating to marriage in the United Kingdom.
The effect of this would be, that a man might have two
lawful wives at the same time, one in England and another
in Scotland, and he cited the authority of Vice-Chancellor
Sir raga Wood in support of that statement. The clause
which limited the act to England was inserted merely to
prevent opposition on the . part of Irish and Scotch
members, and no doubt it was intended to extend
it ultimately both to Scotland and Ireland. He
argued that it would be more impolitic to pass a law to
which a number of their countrymen were opposed on re-
ligious grounds. It had been stated it was unwise, when
it was known a number of persons were living with their
deceased wife's sister, to render such an act of concubinage
by maintaining the law in its present state. But if there
were anything in that argument it should apply to other
cases, for there were several cohabiting who were not only
in the degree of affinity but of consanguinity. He denied
that this was a poor man's question, and said that in the re-
turn made in 1847 it was ascertained that out of 1640 persons
living with their sisters-in-law, only 40 were labourers or
mechanics. He disputed also the argument that the sister
would be rendered a better guardian of the brother-in-law's
children if the laws were altered. and contended that it
would entirely change her feelings towards him and her
sister.
Mr. PEASE supported the bill on social and religious
grounds,
as well as on expediency.
Mr. K. SEYMER opposed the second reading, and
dwelt on the fact of the sentiments of the people of Scotland
and Ireland being so adverse to the measure. He con-
tended also that on religious grounds the bill was objee.
tionable, and that the feeling against it was stronger out of
the house than in it. If passed, it would lead to an entire
change in the law, and they would have to adopt the Welsh
system. If they were to sanction by law everything they
could not prevent, they would alter the whole morality of
the country. Why, he would ask, were they called on to
alter the law at the wish of a comparatively small number
of their countrymen? He then proceeded to combat the
other arguments in support of the bill. .
Sir S. M. PET° said that all Nonconformists stated
emphatically that there was nothingin Scripture or socially
which should stand in the way of such marriages. He
looked- upon this as a poor man's question. Amongst those
who were in his employ be knew that the law was syste-
matically set at defiance. He thought the house would do
bell t 9 99114trY, ftt large )4 PaIMUlg tale JAll4t ()Awl 4

great parade had been made of the meriting ^.t Willie's
Rooms. Being anti, us to hear what could be said at the
meeting he went there and was refused admission, because
he Na as not provided with a ticket. (Laughter.)
Mr. LYGON said that tickets were sent to the secretary
of the Marriage Law Reform Society, whose members
might hays been present if they pleased.
Mr. DENMAN consideredsthat it was unnecessary and
unfair to keep up the present restrictions, and that the law
ought to be altered. He believed there was nothing to be
found in Scripture opposed to these marriages.
Mr. -WHITESIDE did not believe that the bill would
receive the sanction of the house. The bill excluded Scot-
land and Ireland, and it would he highly undesirable to
have conflicting laws on marriage in a united
kingdom. He wished the law officers of the Crown would
explain the legal difficulties which arose ; but there gentle-
men were always present whenthey were not wanted, and
always absent when their services might be useful.
Mr. M. MILNES was surprised to hear the right hon.
and learned gentlemen fresh from his experiences in Ireland
arguing from parity of marriages there.
The house divided—
For the second reading
Against it 177
Majority —s
The bill was therefore lost.
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

NEWMARKET DACES.—(This Day.)

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 25 SOUS. •

Estrelda
SWEEPSTAKES OF 20 SOVS.

Emily - w. 0.

SWEEPSTAKES OF 100 SOVS.

Asteroid
Carbineer
Three ran.

LATEST BETTING ON THE COURSE.

TWO THOUSAND.
10 to 1 agst Overton (taken)
100 to 8 agst Diophantus (offered)

CHESTER CUP.
14 to 1 agst Light (taken freely)
40 to 1 agst Millionaire (taken)

THE DERBY.
30 to 1 agst Robin Hood (filen)

DIAB-YLEBONE ELECTION-THIS DAY:

STATE OF THE POLL.
TEN O'CLOCK.

. 894