The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

staling that many of them had been rendered nugatory-
by subsequent Acts of Parliament.
Mr. MUNTZ thought that every man ought to in-
terpret the Word of God for himself, and not lean en-
tirely on the canons of the Church. Ile for his part
could not see anything in the Word of God forbidding
these marriages; he bad seen great benefits arising from
such marriages, and he hoped that his Hon. Friend
would persevere with his Bill.

Colonel THOMPSON thought that not only were
these marriages not forbidden, but were enjoined in
the Scriptures, and were even commended by the
Founder of Christianity.
Mr. MANGLES thought that the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Hope) was, by his
amendment, striving to put an additional burden on the
consciences of clergyman of the Church of England. He
could not see the value of canons which were contradic-
tory to Acts of Parliament.

Mr. GLADSTONE thought that the Bill went to
establish perfect anarchy, by leaving to every clergy-
man's conscience the interpretation of the law under
which he acted. But he thought that it was a little too
late in the day to impugn the validity of the canons,
when clergymen were constantly being subjected to
severe punishment, temporal and spiritual, under them.
Thrie was no article of our faith which could be esta-
blished on higher grounds than the prohibition of the, .e
marriages by the canon. With regard to the amend-
ment he was prepared to go farther than the Honourable
Gentleman who had proposed it. He was persuaded
that this Bill would greatly lower the general tone of
society. He should support the amendment.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought that the clause in
the Bill was certainly preferable to the amendment;
but he did not ccnsider that even if the amend-
ment were introduced into the Bill that it would
render it valueless. He thought that the amendment
should not be considered entire, but in detail. He ob-
jected to the words " net authorised" in the amendment,
as it would render those marriages void for celebrating
which clergymen were punished, which would be pro-
ductive of great evils.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY was confirmed in his ori-
ginal judgment by the discussion which had taken place.
He wished to explain one point to the House. The 99th
canon, about which so much had- been said, was sub-
scribed to by no clergymen of the Church of England
on his ordination; and out of the 141 canons there were
three selected, to which each clergyman was obliged to
subscribe.

After a few words of explanation from Mr. GLAD-
STONE and Mr. GOITLBURN,

Mr. DENISON stated that he understood it was
not the intention of his Hon. Friend to press his amend-
ment. He wished to state that among the many peti-
tions which he had presented to the House in favour of
this Bill there was not one but was numerously signed
by clergymen.
The gallery was then cleared, but the amendment was
negatived without a division.
The discussion was then renewed, and several clauses
were then agreed to.
On the clause for extending the operation of the Bill
to Scotland,
Mr. FOX MAULE said that he could state,
upon the very highest legal authority in Scotland,
that these marriages were not only voidable but abso-
lutely void. The only reason that had been assigned for
extending this law to Scotland was, that it was ad-
visable to render the practice in the two countries of
England and Ireland uniform.—(Hear.) Now he could,
for his own part, perceive no reason for rendering that
practice uniform. By the Act of Union the Confession of
Faith was signed by all the important ministers of Scotland
as the basis of the ecclesiastical government of that
country, and this law if extended to Scotland would be,
in the first place, a complete infraction between the two
countries. They had on one occasion interfered with
the feelings of the people of that country, and the con-
sequence bad been that a body of upwards of 400 minis-
ters, who, whether they be right or whether they be
wrong, be did not intend to give an opinion—upwards
of 400 ministers had determined to secede from
the Established Church of that country ; and
he did not hesitate to say, that if this Bill
were to be passed in its present shape it
would lead to the annihilation of the Established Church
altogether. The Confession of Faith of 1567 had con-
tinued the ground workof the ecclesiastical government
of that country until 1835. But now they proposed to
introduce a measure which was perfectly abhorrent to
the feelings of the people, and were in the first place dis-
placing the law of the land by creating a new principle
which could not be engrafted on the customs, cr find any
place in the feelings, of the people, and, secondly, which
must destroy all the principles of cohesion which had
hitherto existed, and existed usefully to the present time.
The only instance that he had ever heard of
the marriage of a man with the sister
of a deceased wife had occurred in a place with which
he was well acquainted, and such had been the conse-
quence of the feeling excited that all the parties con-
cerned had been compelled to leave the neighbourhood.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved that the fol-
lowing clause be added to the Bill:—" And be it enacted,
that this Act shall not extend to Scotland, nor shall any
thing therein contained alter, or be construed to alter,
the law relating to marriage in that country."
The LORD ADVOCATE said that however desirous
he was for preventing anything like dissension in Scot-
land, he was compelled to observe that his Right Hon.
and Learned Friend was not quite right in his allusion
to the immutability of the Confession of Faith of 1567, for
it had been altered and amended in 1690, and there had
been an addition subsequent to that; after very ma-
ture consideration, and nut without the coincidence of
opinion in many high legal functionaries, that the incon-
venience likely to arise flora the Bill, would be far more
than counterbalanced by the advantages which it was
likely to confer. What was the case? why, if this
clause were to be added to the Biil, it would radically
create a difficulty which might never be got over.—
(Hear, hear.) It a woman, who had been the sister of a
deceased wile, were to marry her late sister's hus-
band, she would be a wife in one country and a
mistress' in the other. If she survived her husband,
she would be widow in one country, entitled to dower,
and with all her widow's rights; and in the other no
widow at all, and entitled to no rights.—(Hear, hear.)
The children which might be the issue of their marriage
would in the one country be of heritable blood, while in
the other there would be no heritable rights in them
whatever.—(Hear, hear.) This was a mischief which
ought, in his opinion, to he rectified, and this Bill, so far
from being contrary either to the laws of God or the in-
terests of the country, was quite in keeping with both,
and he should therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE said that this Bill would be
altogether against the feelings of the people of Scotland,
and he wis surprised that the Lord-Advocate should Le
in favour of it.

Mr. DRUMMOND said that the Reformers of 1560
had indeed been Reformers, for they strove to take away
from the church all that was bad, and leave all that was
good, so that unity and good feeling might remain in
all the members of the church; but the Reformers of the
present day seemed to have for their only object to sow
dissension in every parish. He would only remind them
that their law could never supersede that of God or
make that not incestuous which the Divine revelation
declared to be so. However, he would say nothing fur-
ther, but res9rve himself for the third reading.
Mr. OSWALD, after quoting several portions of the
larger and smaller Catechism, asserted that the imposi-
tion of this Bill would have the effect of compelling the
clergy of the Established Church to violate the oaths
which they took at their ordination.
Mr. WORTLEY then explained his object in ex-
tending this Bill to Scotland, and stated that so far from
the object of the Bill being contrary to the feelings of
the people of Scotland, he had received numerous appli-
cations from all the large towns i❑ Scotland, and it was
notorious that many of these marriages had been cele-
brated in Scotland and many of the clergy had been
placed in most painful positions from the want of it.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER would oppose the Bill
to the utmost of his power. He thought that the Church
of Scotland had as much right to complain of this Bill
as they would have of the infraction of any of the
articles of the Union. The effect of this Bill was to say
that the ministers of the Chrrch of Scotland should not
be prosecuted even if they broke its laws.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. J.
WORTLEY,
Mr. HUME was decidedly in favour of the Bill,
but he was decidedly opposed to the extension of the
Bill in Scotland.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved an amendment, that the
Bill should not be extended to Ireland. They did not
want that Bill.

Mr. FOX MAULE had no objection to do that for
Ireland which he had done for Scotland. He had not
heard one single word from any gentleman on the oppo-
site ride of the House to alter his original judgment.
After some explanations from Mr. Stuart Wortley,
Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. J. O'Connell,
The gallery was then cleared for a division, and there
appeared—
For the clause as amended 66
Against it ... ••• ... 119
Majority • „ , —53
Mr. GOULBURN objected to a portion of the
preamble of the Bill; he expected that in the next ses-
sion some Member would come down and propose the
extension of sufferance to a still nearer degree of affinity.
Mr. R. PALMER thought tho portion referred to
affirmed that which.was:untrue both as a matter of fact
and a matter of law, and be therefore objected to it.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, as the words objected to
were unnecessary he would concur in their omission.
The words were accordingly struck out, and the
preamble as amended having been agreed to, the Chair-
man was directed to report the Bill to the House.
The House having resumed, the Chairman reported
accordingly, and the report was ordered to be received
on Friday.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

On the question for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. CHRISTOPHER objected to their going into
Committee at that late hour (half-past four), as the
measure would require much discussion and much
alteration before it could pass. For Ms own part he al-
together objected to the measure. It made it compul-
sory for the lord of the manor to enfranchise the
tenantry, without inflicting any such compulsion on the
tenant. He should therefore move that it be committed
this day six months.

Lord GALWAY was opposed to allone• sided measures,
and had much pleasure in seconding the amendment.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the course the llon. Mem-
ber for Lincolnshire had just adopted was somewhat
extraordinary. He had commenced by asking for delay,
and concluded with calling upon the House at once to
express an opinion upon the principle of the Bill.—(A
laugh.) He had satisfied himself that the principle
was equitable and just, and ho begged to assure the
Honourable Gentleman that it was his determination
if he could, to pass it this session, but of course it would
be his duty to bow to the decision of the House, and all
he could do if the House threw it out then was to renew
it: next session, which he certainly should do. A large