The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16', 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.

(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

JUDGMBNT.-ROTTON V. BARRON.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This is a sum-
mons taken out to vary the chief clerk's certificate. The
plaintiffs who make the application here are the Commis-
sioners under the Charing Cross Improvement Act, and the
defendants are the officers of the parish of St. Martin. The
act requires that the parish shall be protected from the loss
of rate assessments on old houses pulled down for the for-
mation of new streets or parish improvements, during the
time occupied in rebuilding, and the surplus of the rates
levied on the new houses shall, after deducting the rates
payable on the old houses, be paid to the commissioners
under the provisions of the 46th section of the act. The
Chief Clerk, on taking an average account of rates
for three years on the new houses, and deducting these
Item the rates payable on the old houses, certified that there
was no surplus balance payable to the commissioners. Take
the rates from 21st July, 1855, to 21st July, 1856, to be
£2,692 13s. 2d., and take the rates at 2s. Ild., if inadequate
they might raise it Is. 3d., and that would give a rate of
35. 2d., and there would be a surplus to be applied to the
commissioners for purposes under the act of £1,794 15s. 6d.
On the other hand, take the average of three yearstumount
of rates collected on the old houses, and the rates collected
on the new houses during three years, ending 31st
May, 1856, £2,448 2s. id., and taking the rate at 2s. 6d., it
would be reduced to £1,883; it would be reduced above
a third, and leave a deficiency of £BB. His Honour
considered that the best criterion to ascertain the amount
of rate of the parish was to take the amount of income-tax
£25,325 minus is. 11d. to be deducted in respect of repairs;
that would reduce it £2,305, and, deducting the old rates,
there would be a surplus of £463 9s. Bd. to the commis-
sioners, instead of a deficiency of £BB as before stated. His
Honour observed he had no power to compel the parish to
adopt any state of assignment, but the plaintiff was at
liberty to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a
mandamus to compel the parish to make a fair and proper
rate, and upon it to ascertain the amount due to the com-
missioners. His Honour considered under present circum-
stances the certificate of his chief clerk was right and must
be confirmed. His Honour confirmed the certificate of his
chief clerk with costs, with liberty to apply.

Mr. ACKROYD supported the second reading of the
bill. He said these marriages were very common amongst
the working classes, who, satisfied that they were not for-
bidden by the law of God, had no scruple in contracting
them, and were therefore, so long as the present law was
unaltered, living in a state of what some might call eon-
cubinage.

General THOMPSON said that as all his constituents
wanted to marry the sisters of their deceased wives—
(laughter)—he must say a few words in favour of the bill
en their behalf. It was a fact that the community were in
favour of it, and he could not understand how a man who
saw his sister-in-law paying attention to her nephews and
nieces, and supplying the place of their mother could pre-
vent entertaining for her those feelings which would induce
him to make her his wife. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STEWART opposed the bill, and/condemned legis-
lating for this country without including Scotland.
Sir G. LEWIS supported the second reading of the bill.
When they looked to Protestant and Catholic countries
they found that these marriages were permitted in some
form or another. This law against marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister was opposed to the feelings of the
people tat large. He asked the house if it was to
retain the present state of the law, when such was
the case ? The present law, he repeated, did not exist
in other countries at present, and did not exist in this
country until 1835, and taking this into consideration, as
well as the popular feeling that had been exhibited, and the
extremely stringent and painful character of the law, he
trusted the opposition would not be persisted in, and that
the bill would not only be read a second time that day, but
would shortly become the law of the land. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said that although in Prussia, which
was a Protestant country, marriage with a deceased wife's
sister was legalised, it was also lawful for an uncle to marry
his niece, and were they prepared to go to the same extent ?
When they were preparing to alter a law that so deeply
affected the social state of all classes, they should bring
forward the most satisfactory reasons for the change. If
they pressed this bill they would have to make an altera-
tion in the law of divorce in the provisions, which related
to incest ,• and he believed the effect of the change pro-
posed by This measure.
After some further discussion the house divided. The
numbers were—

For the second reading
Against it
Majority -60
The bill was then read a second time.

Baron M. ItontscHlLD took the oaths and his seat for
Hytho.

The house then adjourned.

DISCOVERY OF II UMAN REMAINS.

An interesting discovery was last week made on
the estate of Sir George Hampson, at Thurnham.
While some men were engaged in levelling what
appeared to be a chalk mound in a field almost on
the brow of Thurnham-hill, after digging through
the chalk to the depth of between two and three
feet, they came to the natural soil, and on going
about a foot and a half lower they found the re-
mains of a number of human beings lying in a circle,
in regular order round the mound, with their heads
pointing to the centre, and the feet of others meet-
ing the heads of those placed in the outside row.
The remains of a horse were also found lying with
them, but there were no relics of any description
to indicate to what people of a bygone age they
belonged. The bones were in a remarkable state
of preservation, considering the length of time
the bodies must needs have been deposited
there,—certainly not later than the earlier period
of the Saxon invasion, 1,500 years ago,—the
perfect sheletons being traced as .they lay in the
soil, but not admitting of removal in that state.
One of the skulls has been placed in the Maid-
stone Museum. The mound was of considerable size,
and the chalk at the top had evidently been shot on
to the earth. The remains of seven bodies were
found in the space of about three rods, and by far
the greater portion of the mound still remains un-
disturbed.i This place of ancient sepulture s
situate but a short distance below the ruins of
the ancient fortification known as Godard's
Castle, from its having, as some authorities
tell us, been built by Godardus, a Saxon ; but
from the urns found in this locality, and
other evidence there can be no doubt that
the Romans had a station there, of which it is
i
highly probable that Godard's Castle s a relic,
though it may have been afterwards used and re-
paired by the Saxons. Some even suppose that it
was a British military position before the landing
of Ctesar—a conjecture which is by no means in,-
probable, from its advantageous site for observing
the extensive valley below, and the important
stretch of surrounding country which it commands.
---South-Eastern Gazette.

FATAL ACCIDENT IN DUBLIN BAY.--43etween
three and four o'clock on Monday four men, named. Pat
M‘Loughlin, Matthew Shannon, Geo. Shannon, and Ilenry
Shannon, proceeded in a small boat down the Bay of Dublin.
for the purpose of boarding a vessel expected to arrive by
the up-tide. After passing the Poolbeg, Light a heavy
firstthe boatnarn upset,efiwhiacthovepefished. The two others
when, we regret to say,
clung to the boat and oars, and were picked 'up by a tug
steamer coming towards the river. Strangely enough
one of the men rescued was one of the most helpless of the
tshqueall two struck
menek
crew, having a wooden leg. The bodies of the two drowned
men have not been yetiound,—Freeman's burnal;

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(THIS DAY).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a second time, and ordered
to be committed :
Berks and Hants Extension Railway, Mid-Kent Rail-
way, Witney Railway (No. 2), Malden and Sheen Valley
Drainage, Wells and rakenham Railway.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved the following, which were
agreed to :—That the order for the second reading of the
Atlantic Telegraph Company Bill be read. and discharged.
That the bill be withdrawn. That leave be given to bring
in a bill to alter and amend the Acts relating to the
Atlantic Telegraph Company, and to enable the company
to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." That
Mr. Stuart Wortley and Mr. Samuel Gurney do prepare
and bring in the bill.

PETITIONS.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from the inhab

tants of Brompton, setting forth that they viewed with
great apprehension the spread of popery. in England, and
the dissemmination of the " Garden of the Soul" in the
arm
Mr.
y.
DENNISON presented a petition praying for the
repeal of the duty on paper.
Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS presented five petitions to the same
effect.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.

Sir R. FERGUSON moved the second reading of this
bill, and said he proposed that it should bo referred to a
select committee.
After a few words from Sir D. Norres, Col. French, Mr.
Mr. M'Mahon, and other hon. membeis,
This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn.
mitted this day four weeks.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord BURY, in moving the second reading of this bill,
said that though he was prepared to answer any objection
on the part :of the hon. member. (Mr. B. Hope) who had
an amendment on the paper, '.'he believed he would be
consulting the feelings of the house if 'he abstained from
any observations at present. He would, therefore, merely
at the present moment move that the bill should be read a
second time.

Mr. A. A.B. HOPE said ho had to complain of the per-
dnacity with which the noble lord had pressed forward this
measure. The noble lord had given no reasons for his sup 7
port of the bill, and merely acted on the principle, sic vole
sic jubio. It was most improper that a measure
like the present, which so seriously affected the social con-
dition of the community, should be only placed in their
hands that morning, and therefore they were called on to
decide on its principle with undue haste. He denied that
there had been an adequate demonstration on the part of
the people in any part of this country, as shown by peti-
tions, to justify the introduction of,this bill. He contended
that the preponderance of feeling in the country was against
the bill. (No, no.) As long as gentlemen cried " No, no,"
he would cry " Yes, yes." (Laughter.) He repeated that
if the community were fully canvassed, his assertion
would be found to be correct, and he must strongly
denounce the attempt made by the supporters of this
bill to bring the brand of discord into the heart of the social
circle; to change the sacred and tender feelings of the sister
towards her brother-in-law, and to make her shrink-11.am
the most innocent attentions on his part. Its effect, also,.
on the interests of her nephews and-nieces would be most
injurious, and they could no longer look forwtard with
sincerity to her protection and affection as to that 9f a
second mother. If they admitted that it should be legal
for a man to marry his sister-in-law, they would inevitably
come to the rendering legal marriage with a niece, which
was the case in those countries on the continent when the
former was sanctioned by law. "No, no.") He did not
propose to deal with the religious pkrt of the question, be-
cause the arguments which he had- brought forward last
year had not' been answered ; and he heard one gentleman
state that a charity girl would confute a bench of bishops on
the religious part of the subject. He concluded by moving
that the bill be read a second time -that day six months.
' Mr. BALL, in supporting the second reading of the bill,
said he had heard nothing from the hon. member (Mr.
Ho ,w) to induce him to change his opinion on this question,
and he could not see how what was considered to be cor-
rect in 1835, should 'iot be regarded as- just and proper in
1859. (Hear, hear.) He had not so much acquaintance
with religious societies as the hon." member, but he was
connected with several of them., and they were in favour of
the measure. Moreover, they had the fact that there were
petitions presented from no less than 750 clergymen of the
metropolis, who, he believed, formed the majority of the
clergy in London. So far from being productive of the
evils predicted by the honourable :member for Maidstone,
they would have directly the contrary effect.
Sir F. BUXTON expressed his surprise that the hon.
member should have asserted that there was not a strong
popular feeling in the country, when they considered the
petitions presented on the subject, and the opinion of the
majority of the press throughout the country, which
strongly advocated the legalising of the marriages in ques-
tion. If these marriages were not opposed to the Word of
God, why should they not be legalised by the law of man ?
In fact, it was most desirable that they should decide on
this question without further delay, and by that means
terminate the suspense which at present prevailed in the
minds of the community, so long as the matter was unde-
cided. It had been contended that these marriages were
opposed to the book of Leviticus ; but was it not a fact that
the Jews, who were the best interpreters of the text of the Old
Testament permitted these marriages from the very com-
mencement. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said it was a strong proof of the '
progress of liberty that within the space of one week a bill
was introduced to sanction incest and another to sanction
sacrilege. (Laughter.) He deniedthat it had been proved
to the satisfaction of any reasoning mindthat the marriages
proposed by this bill were not directly opposed to the Word
of God. (Cries of "Oh, oh.") When the papers sane
tioned incest they did so for some interested motive,- but
they had no such plea for the act they proposed to commit.
It was against the law of God to form these marriages,
and the word of man could not set aside that of. God.