The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-23 00:00:00

RETURNS ORDERED.

On the motion of Sir J. PAKINUTON the following re-
turn was ordeted :—Returta of the number of seamen and
boys who deserted from the Royal navy between the Ist
day of January, 1858, and the 30th day of September, 1860,
inclusive.

On the motion of Mr. LYG ON the following return was
ordered :—Copies of two letters, dated the sth of December,
1857, and the 16th of February, 1858, with any plans re-
ferred to therein, from Sir It. Bromley, K.C.8., to the se-
cretary to the Commissioners of Public Works, relative to
the concentration of the public offices, and of any replies
thereto.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT.

Mr. M. MILNE S moved to bringin a bill to legalise mar-
riage with a deceased wife's sister. He apologised for in-
troducing a question which had been six times before the
house, on the ground that it affected the happiness of thou-
sands of persons. He would not enter into the historical
discussions connected with the measure, but would reserve
them for the second reading. He would simply refer to the
state in which the law was left by what was called Lord Lynd-
hurst's bill of 1835 ; but it was alibel on that noble lord to call
it by his name ; for the measure which he introduced was
simply a bill to limit the time within which those marriages
might be disputed, and the measure was of a very different
character when it left the house. (Hear.) Perhaps he
hal as great a right as any one to introduce this measure ;
for he had presented petitions from places in the county
of York in favour of it, signed by no fewer than 55,434
pet sons—(hear, hear)—and of those, above 21,000 were
of that sex who, it had been said, were to a woman
opposed to the bill. (Hear, hear.) Of the petition on the
other side which had been presented to the House of Lords
by the Bishop of Oxford, said to be from the women of Eng-
land, an immense proportion of the signatures were written
apparently in a man's handwriting. (Hear.) It was impos-
sible to deny that this was a question which affected the
happiness of numbers of homes. The law had been left in a
state not only contrary to the public sense ofjusticc, but of
levalue Thacesty,ArriAgpa had gone on ever since the time
of Ileury VILE., without any doubt as to their propriety.
While a marriage of an incestuous character would at once
have been made the subject of a suit in the ecclesiastical
courts, these: marriages frequently occurred, without scan-
dal and without injury; and from the inquiries of the com-
!, mission in 1832 it appeared that there was hardly on reeord
a single case iu which an action had been brought in con-
! sequence of such marriages. The inference was that there
was something special in those marriages, that they were
I not repugnant to the ,reason and feelings of a Christian
people, and that, whatever might be the condition of the
law, it was thought that they might be contracted without
any injury to society. It was impossible to determine what
was the number of these marriages. That eminent divine,
Dr. Adam Clarke, stated that in the Methodist body a large
number of the preachers had contracted those marriages,
without any scandal to their congregations. Those mar-
riages had been frequent, and the slate of the law was not
unsatisfactory until t here arose that celebrated case of one
noble family which brought this matter before public con-
sideration, while hundreds, and perhaps thousands of those
marriages were taking place in other ranks of life. (Hear,
hear.) The effect of the change of the law in 1832
was only to the advantage of that noble family, and
a very few others, and to the disadvantage of the mass of
the community. The law had begun, in injustice, in that
discrin.ination between classes which was repugnant to the
sense of Englishmen, and which he hoped would never be
considered a sound basis for the laws of this or any other
country. The effect of that law was to declare that per-
sons who had been married up to a certain day were legally
married—that the children born up to a certain day were
legitimate ; but that afterwards those marriages were inces-
tuous, end that the children born of them were bastards.
Ile proposed to legalise these marriages in a simple form,
which he trusted would not shock the most delicate con-
science. The bill provided that all marriages solemnised
before the registrar should be recognised by the law as a
civil contract and declared legal marriages ; but that no-
thing in the bill should affect the dignity, title, fortune, or
arrangements dependent on the present state of the law.
He slid not think that Scriptural objections to these mar-
riages weighed much in the minds of the English people.
Twenty-one bishops admitted that there was no direct
p•ollority in Scripture against such unions, and among
them were some who were formerly the strongest opponents

of the bill. The ecclesiastical part of the question, however,
could be better discussed in the House of Lords than in this
house. If the bill went up to the other house, backed by a
large majority of the House of Commons, he thought the
question would be very soon decided. It was his strong
conviction that both in a natural and social point of view
these marriages were some of the happiest which could be
contracted. lie believed that the real and only question
they had to decide was whether these marriages should be
legal or whether they should uphold a system of concu-
binage. (Hear.) If any uneasiness was felt among a por-
tion of the people with respect to such unions, surely that
was not a reason why they should perpetuate an injustice.
He trusted that upon general grounds Parliament would
ultimately adopt the measure. Above all, he hoped it
would not be made a party question. He asked the house
to allay the miserable anxieties which had so long existed
on the subject, and to give peace to those susceptible minds
that were disturbed in consequence of the present state of
the law. In a word, all that he asked them to do was, by
adopting the measure, to reconcile law and conscience to the
British people. (Hear.)
Mr. BUXTON seconded the motion.

Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. member observed that he
had heard that no opposition would be offered to the intro-
duction of the bill. No opposition, except in one single in-
stance, had been made to the introduction of such a mea-
sure, because when a member who represented a large num-
ber of people desired a measure to be considered, it was felt
respectful to them that it should be laid on the table, and
the fullest attention given to it. For that reason, if for no
other, he would not oppose the present motion, nor should
he have risen at all but that he wished to guard himself and
the house from being supposed to assent to one or two pro-
positions which the hon. member had enunciated with per-
haps more latitude than he intended. He adverted to the
act of that great jurist and statesman, Lord Lyndhurst; it
really was not his act, but whether it was or not he would
not stop to inquire; but he would inquire whether the hon.
member's representation of that act, and the effect of it on
the people of this country, was a fait representation. At the
time it passed these marriages were what wore called void •
able marriages, that was to say, that down to a certain time
if n 6 person attempted to set aside these marriages, they
were not void, but that it was within the power of interested
persons as well as others, by applying to the court, to get
them set aside and declared void, notwithstanding theparties
had cohabited, and children been born. Now Lord Lynd-
hurst's act made this change in the law. It provided a re-
medy in those cases where marriage had been contracted,
so as to prevent the bastardy of the children born after such
marriage ; but instead of leaving the law in an uncertain
state—which, with regard to marriages, is the worst state in
which the law can be—it laid down a rule conformably with
that which had been the rule of law and the rule of the
Christian Church, that such marriages werenot in fact sanc-
tioned by the law of God. But his hon. friend complained,
by an argunsentunz ad invidianz, that the law made a dis-
tinction between the rich and the poor—that it was a law in
favour of a great duke. (Hear, bear.) He saw by those
cheers that the distinction was felt to be sound. But was
it so ? The law retrospectively declared that these mar-
riages should only be set aside down to a certain period,
but not marriages contracted by a duke or peer, or any
particular class of persons. (Hear.) These marriages were
all placed on the same footing. Whether the law was good
or not was not the question ; but he contended, without fear
of contradiction, that it did not make a distinction between
the rich and the poor. There was another point upon which
the hon. member was not so guarded as he should have
been. He said the bill was simply one to enable persons to
contract marriages before the registrar. He laid down the
proposition in the most general manner, saying that any
person might contract marriage with any other, and that,
provided the contract was made before the registrar, the
marriage was good. Did the hon. member not assent to
that version of what he stated ?

Mr. M. MILNES—I propose to confine the bill solely to
marriages with a deceased wife's sister.

Mr. WALPOLE was glad to hear the explanation ; but
the proposition of the hon. member applied to marriages
generally. He used the phrase that persons ought to have
liberty in this matter as well as in others ; and he ought
not to have argued for general freedom unless he was pre-
pared to give a general power. (Hear.) If you mado a spe-
cial exception in favour of a special class, and grounded it
on reason and morality, you might, substantiate a good case,
but if you proceeded on the popular notion that there was
to be no restraint on personal liberty in these matters, and
that provided the contract was a civil contract a man was
at liberty to marry what person he pleased, with the limita-
tion, of course, that there was no consanguinity between
the parties to prohibit it, then see what a flood of immo-
rality you would immediately launch upon the people of this
country. (Hear, hear.) He entreated the hon. member to
consider the consequences of his measure, and to see whe-
ther, if it had passed, the Legislature would not bo bound
to admit other marriages within the same arrangement.
He should not argue against the bill on theory, still
less on ecclesiastical grounds. The basis of his argument
was this—that the last thing the nation ought to do
was to alter the law of marriage, which was known to the
country where it prevailed, especially when a moral and
religious sanction, and therefore the best of all sanctions,
had been given to it by the usages of the country, by the
feeling of the people, and by the high moral state to which
it had raised society. (Hear.) He should still more *depre-
cate any alteration in this law unless they were certain they
could take their stand upon some intelligible principle,which
should prevent them from extending the matter further
thereafter. His firm belief was that they could not do this-
His firm belief was that if the people of this country were
fairly represented with reference to this question, they would
say—" Keep the law as it is, give the greatest freedom you
can, but protect the more provident who do not break
through those obligations which, in point of fact, have con-
tributed more than anything else to the high moral position
in which the whole country has been placed. Do not imperil
them by imaginary notions of a general freedom to be given
in these matters, unless you can prove upon grounds of mo-
rality that such freedom will not deteriorate the moral con-
dition of the people of England." (Cheers.)

Mr. MILNES said ho thought he had satisfied himself
that he had strictly confined his remarks to the case of mar-
riage with a deceased wife's sister. That was the subject
to which, follov, ing the usage of the house, he had endea-
voured to restrict himself, and he had no apprehension that
the provisions of the bill would be extended to any othor
relation of life. He wished for no change whatever that was
not required by some large body of public opinion in the
country. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. V. SCULLY said he thought this was eminently a
question for the consideration of the hon. member's coun-
trymen, and still more of his countrywomen. He thought
it was a woman's question, and that the house ought to
be guided exclusively in the matter by the feelings of the
women of the country. He had done all that lay in his
power to ascertain what were the feelings of his own
countrywomen on the subject. (Laughter.) They were
unrepresented in that house, and he entirely surrendered
his judgment to what he might consider to be their feel-
ings and instincts, for of course whenever a measure was
passed in England it was likely to be extended to Ireland,
and he had always found that they revolted against such a
law. He had not descended into the lower classes of the
community to ascertain what their feelings wero—(a
laugh)--but ho should certainly take an opportunity of
consulting the humbler classes of his countrywomen as to
whether they did not still more strongly revolt against
such a measure. But he should not presume to form an
opinion on this subject contrary to the feelings and in-
stincts of his countrywOmen. (Laughter.)
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
METROPOLITAN LOCAL TAXATION.

Mr. AIRTON, in rising to move that a committee be
appointed to inquire into the subject of the local taxation
and government of the metropolis, said he merely desired to
explain the grounds on which he asked for a committee.
He feared the house had been lately so troubled with metro-
politan subjects, that they were not now desirous to have
much of their time occupied with them. (Hear.) The
house it would be also borne in mind had been troubled with
another bill on the subject of local government and taxation
in the metropolis, which was equally perplexing, and the
question became more and more embarrassing. There was,
for instance, great difficulty about the gas question and the
supply of water, and about the state of the Thames ; and
the Board of Trade had invited the house to take some
steps in order to prevent the metropolis from becoming em-
barrassed in every direction by the operations of railway
companies. It was desirable, therefore, there should be
some properly constituted authority in reference to those
questions. They had railway companies now creating ob-
structions in the navigation of the Thames. There were tolls
imposed for crossing bridges, while they found that bridges
crossing the river were being broken down. The Metropo-
litan Board of Works presented them with a schedule
amounting to no less a sum than £15,003,000 of taxation and
expenditure. Now, that was one of the great burdens which
he was desirous to have a committee to inquire into. There
was another point which he was desirous should be inquired
into, namely, the question of local administration and juris-
diction. There wa,, fcr instance, one system of govern-
ment on one side of Temple-bar, and a totally different one
on the other side. (Hear, hear.) He was desirous to see
whether all those systems might not be so dealt with as to
be brought into harmony. (Hear.) There was another
great grievance as to the manner in which juries were
summoned to serve. One man, for instance, living and
carrying on busineis on one side of the bridge in London
was dragged down to Guildford to serve on juries, and
another, living on the other side of the bridge, was dragged
into Kent also to serve on juries. He thought it desirable
that these persons who lived in London should only be
called upon to serve on Loudon juries. There were other
matters which related to direct and indirect taxation, which
were levied in London, and which it was:desirable a com-
mittee should inquire into. The City of London levied
£60,000 or £70,000 a year in taxation, and no one knew by
what authority the various taxes were levied. He should
move that it be ono of the instructions to the committee to
inquire by what authority these taxes were levied, and it
was necessary also that the house should know by whom
those taxes were collected, for what purpose they were col-
lected, and to what objects they were to be applied. This
he must say, that no one had & right to levy indirect or
personal taxes upon anybody when the parties were not
satisfied how they were to be applied, He wished to have

BIRT.
COLVILLE.—On the 21st inst.,H atS 42, Eaton-place, Lady
Colville, of Cutress, of a son.
Cuurrr.---On the 21st inst., at 25, Eccleston-square,
S.W., the Wife of George Cubitt, Esq., M.P., of
daughter.
PAY NF.—On the 20th inst, at 10, Cleveland-terrace, Hyde-
park, the wife of T. B. Payne, Esq., of a son.

MARRIAGES.
ARMSTRONG—DENNE.—On the 21st ity3t.,...ltt the parish

church of Littlebourne, Kent Colonel J. W. Armstrong,
C. 8., to Laura, daughter of Denne Bernie, Esq., El-
bridge House, Kent.
MUSPRA.TT—BAINES.—On the 21st inst., at Wandsworth
parish church, Edmund K. biuspratt, Esq., fourth eon
of James Muspratt, Esq., of Seaforth Hall, Liverpool, to
Frances Jane, eldest, daughter of Thomas Baines, Esq.,
of London.