



Produced by Brendan OConnor, Jonathan Ingram, Wayne Hammond
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Library of Early
Journals.)









  BLACKWOOD'S
  EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.


  NO. CCCCVII.      SEPTEMBER, 1849.      VOL. LXVI.




  CONTENTS.


  THE SCOTTISH MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION BILLS,          263

  THE CAXTONS.--PART XVI.                                277

  AUTOBIOGRAPHY--CHATEAUBRIAND'S MEMOIRS,                292

  THE GREEN HAND.--A "SHORT" YARN.--PART IV.             305

  MORAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF WALES,                   326

  THE STRAYED REVELLER,                                  340

  NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF LADY GRANGE,                 347

  THE ROYAL PROGRESS,                                    359

  DIES BOREALES. NO. IV. CHRISTOPHER UNDER CANVASS,      363


  EDINBURGH:

  WILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS, 45, GEORGE STREET; AND 37, PATERNOSTER ROW,
  LONDON.

  _To whom all communications (post paid) must be addressed._

  SOLD BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

  PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH.




  BLACKWOOD'S
  EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.

  NO. CCCCVII.       SEPTEMBER, 1849.       VOL. LXVI.




THE SCOTTISH MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION BILLS.


About two years ago, we found it necessary to draw the attention of
our readers to certain alterations which our Whig rulers, or at least
a section of them, proposed to make in the existing law of marriage,
as applicable to Scotland. We stated our views moderately, not
denying that in some points it might be possible to effect a salutary
change; but utterly deprecating the enforcement of a bill which was
so constructed as to uproot and destroy the ancient consuetudinal law
of the kingdom, to strike a heavy and malignant blow at morality and
religion, and which, moreover, was regarded by the people of Scotland
with feelings of unequivocal disgust. So widely spread was that feeling
amongst our countrymen, of every shade of political opinion and form
of religious faith, that we believed this ill-advised attempt, once
arrested in its progress, would be finally withdrawn. Popularity, it
was quite clear, could never be gained from persisting in a measure so
unpalatable to the whole community; nor had England, save in the matter
of Gretna-green marriages, any visible interest in the question. It is
just possible--for self-conceit will sometimes betray men into strange
extravagancies--that a few individual legislators had more confidence
in the soundness of their own opinions than in that of the opinions of
the nation; but, even if we should give them credit for such honest
convictions, it still remains a doubtful point how far individual
opinions should be allowed to override the national will. There may
be parliamentary as well as regal despotism; and we are much mistaken
if the people of Scotland are inclined to submit to the former yoke,
even at the hands of those who claim honour for their party on the
strength of traditionary denunciations of the latter. We think it is
pretty clear that no private member of parliament would have attempted
to carry through a bill, the provisions of which had been encountered
by such general opposition in Scotland. No ministry would have lent
its support to such a case of insolent coercion; and we confess we
cannot see why the crotchets, or even the convictions, of an official
are to be regarded with greater favour. In a matter purely Scottish,
it would, indeed, be gross despotism if any British cabinet should
employ its power and its interest to overwhelm the voice of Scotland,
as fairly enunciated by her representatives. That has not been done,
at least to the last unpardonable degree; yet, whilst grateful to Lord
John Russell for having, at the last moment, stopped the progress of
these bills, we may very fairly complain that earlier and more decided
steps were not taken by the premier for suppressing the zeal of his
subordinates. Surely he cannot have been kept in ignorance of the
discontent which has been excited by the introduction of these bills,
three several times, with the ministerial sanction, in both houses of
parliament? Had a bill as obnoxious to the feelings of the people of
England, as these avowedly are to the Scots, been once abandoned, it
never would have appeared again. No minister would have been so blind
to his duty, or at all events to his interest, as to have adopted the
repudiated bantling; since, by doing so, he would have inevitably
caused an opposition which could only terminate in his defeat, and
which, probably, might prove fatal to the existence of his cabinet. And
yet, in the case of these bills, we have seen three separate attempts
deliberately made and renewed--first in the House of Commons, and
afterwards in the House of Peers--to thrust upon Scotland measures
of which she has emphatically pronounced her dislike. No wonder if,
under such circumstances, when remonstrance is disregarded, and the
expression of popular opinion either misrepresented or suppressed, men
begin to question the prudence of an arrangement which confides the
chief conduct of Scottish affairs to a lawyer and judge-expectant,
whose functions are so multifarious as to interfere with their regular
discharge. No wonder if the desire of the Scottish nation to have a
separate and independent secretary of state, altogether unconnected
with the legal profession, is finding an audible voice at the
council-boards of the larger cities and towns. Of late years it has
been made a subject of general and just complaint, that the public
business of Scotland is postponed to everything else, huddled over with
indecent haste at untimeous hours, and often entirely frustrated for
the want of a parliamentary quorum. This arises from no indisposition,
on the part of the House of Commons, to do justice to the internal
affairs of the northern kingdom, but it is the natural result of
the system, which virtually leaves Scotland without an official
representative in the cabinet. Every one knows that Sir George Grey
is not only an able, but a most conscientious home-secretary; but, in
point of fact, he is home-secretary for England alone. It is impossible
to expect that, in addition to the enormous labour attendant upon the
English home administration, any man can adequately master the details
of Scottish business. The fundamental difference which exists in the
laws of the two countries would of itself prove an insurmountable
barrier to this; and consequently, like his predecessors, Sir
George Grey has no personal knowledge either of our wishes or our
requirements. He cannot, therefore, take that prominence in a Scottish
debate which his position would seem to require; and the duty which
ought to be performed by a member of the cabinet is usually intrusted
to a subordinate. In this way Scottish public business receives less
than its due share of attention, for the generality of members,
observing that cabinet ministers take little share in such discussions,
naturally enough attribute their silence to a certain degree of
indifference, and are careless about their own attendance. All this,
which involves not only scandal, but positive inconvenience, would
be cured, if a return were made to the older system, and a secretary
of state for Scotland numbered in the roll of the cabinet. The want
of such an arrangement is positively detrimental to the interests of
ministry; for, during the last session, they have assuredly gained
but few laurels from their northern legislation. Four or five bills,
purporting to be of great public importance, have been withdrawn, and
one only, which establishes a new office connected with the Court of
Session, has been graced by the royal assent. Among the lapsed bills
are those which form the subject of the present paper; but they have
not yet lost their vitality. On the contrary, we are led to infer that,
in the course of next session, they will again be introduced, in some
form or other, before parliament.

This mode of treatment is so unprecedented, that we cannot pass it
over in silence. It may not be unconstitutional, according to the
letter of the law; but if it be true, as we maintain it to be, that
the people of Scotland have already protested against these measures,
it does seem rather tyrannical that for the fourth time they should
be compelled to