Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-19 00:00:00

DIVORCE AND MAT RIXONIAL CAUSES DILL

The committee on this bill was resumed.
On clause 53,

Sir W. Heathcote said that he very much regretted to
inform the house that his friend and colleague (Mr. Glad-
stone) who had an important amendment next in order
on the paper for the consideration of the committee, had
lately been sufftring under a severe domestic affliction,

which was the cause of his absence from the house a con.
siderable portion of yesterday. The apprehension that
it would cause his absence from the house the remainder

of the session had, he regretted to say, actually occurred,
and it devolved on him (Sir W. Heathcote) to move the
important amendment of his right hon. co:league and
friend to this clause. The clause as it stood called on the
clergy to marry divorced parties, which would not only
be repugnant to the feelings of the majority of them, but
(as most of them believed) contrary to the law of God.
To relieve the Clergy from the -difficulty in which they ,
found themselves placed by this clause, his right hon,
friend had given notice of this amendment, which was to
the effect that the marriage of divorced persons should
be in the character of a civil contract entered into at the
Registrar's office, but sanctioned by a religious ceremony,
where a clergyman or dissenting minister could be found
voluntarily to perform it.

The Attorney-General regretted the absence of Mr
Gladstone owing to the domestic affliction referred to
who, he remarked, was one of the chiet ornaments of their
debates. (Hear.) It would inflict great injury on the
innocent husband or wife seeking to marry again, or an
innocent person marrying the adulterer or the adultress
as the case
.might be. It would also have the effect, if

. -
carried, of going to confirm the principle that marriage
was indissoluble. The amendment, if carried, would only
make the marriage valid on being solemnised in a
particular form, which would be a great hardship on the
parties, especially if thay were Dissentirs, and
clergymen or Dissanting ministers were willing to
perform the marriage ceremony. A woman marrying lin_
knowingly, a divorced man by the form of the Church
of England, would by the amendment be put in the posi-
tion of a concubine, and the children would be illegitimae.
He suggested that the committee should not decide the
question on this amendment, but first consider whether
divorced persons should have power to marry again, and
on that being decided in the affirmative, then consider
whether the clergy of the Church of England should or
should not be exempted from solemnising such marriages
when they were reluctant to do so. He asked the right
hon. baronet to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. B. Hope supported the amendment. 11,000 clergy-
men of the Church of England had petitioned against the
clause, and he thought some deference should be paid 'to
their feelings.

Mr. Newdegate considered that nothing could justify
the bill in its present form, and urged the committee to
adopt the amendment. He called rpm the committee to
give due influence to to religion as a corrective to the
dangerous tendency to the bill.
Mr..p. Griffiths said that he had intended to move an
amendment prohibiting the guilty party from being
married by the forms of the Church of England, hu-
considering the arguments of the Attorney-General
unat..werable against the amendment he should oppose
it.

Lord J. Manners enforced in a lengthenel speech the
duty of the committee to respect the conscientious scruples
of the clergy, as well as numbers of the laity, on the com-
pulsory marriage of the guilty parties.

Mr. Adams expressed a 'live that the amendment would I
be withdrawn. He considered it was essential that a /
religious sanction should be observed in the solemnisation 1
of marriag 3—whether of members cf the Church of England
or of Dissenters. (Ilea; hear.) He also objected to the
amendment bec use it *et a brand on innocent particsi, as
being unworthy to partake of the religious ceremony of
marriage. He thought liberty of conscience should be
given to the clergy in this respect, and where cleromen
wearriaer
willing they should be permitted to perform Om
m
ge ceremony on either of the divorced parties wish-
ng again to contract marriage.