The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

how any member of the Commission ceuld put his
hand to the entire report who was not p7cpared for an
altetation of the law, and probably a relaxation.
Mr. HENLEY had misunderstood the Honourable
and Learned Gentlemen. There was an extraoreinery
omission in the evidence. Her Majesty's Commissioners
. were bound to treat the most difficult part of the sub-
ject. But they had not touched on what would be the
enrclition of the clergy of the Church of England if this
law were relaxed. That question was touched on by
Mr. Pwerson, by one of the Irish clergy, and by Arch
deacon S nclair. The statement of the clergyman from
Ireland was to the effect that many of the clergy would not
celebrate such marriages; Archdeacon Sinclair expressed
the hope that they would not be compelled to celebrate
them ; and Mr. Paterson thought the clergy felt con-
strained by the force of the canon law. lie spoke from
memory ; but in what position were they going to place
the clergy by this Bill ? Would the Noble Lord sum•
mon Convocation together, to relieve them from the
obligations of the canon law ? The Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had attempted to throw discredit on
the canons ; but while be admitted that they had bt
sanctioned by Cranmer and Parker, he omitted to state
that they had in 1603 been ratified by the Convocation
and confirmed, by the Crown. It was very (talk to
lay how the clergy were to be released from the obliga-
tions of those canons. He should not at present vote on
the general merits of the question. If ever there was
a case artistically got up—he used the word advisedly—
this was the case ; and the report partook wholly of that
character. Any person reading, to copy the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's language, one of the
earliest paragraphs of the report, would believe that the
Pope had to do with the earliest ages of Christianity;
nor did the report advert to the fact that the Eastern
CLnrch had throughout rejected those marriages,
and without dispensation. The report was so carefully
drawn that any one reading it would come to the con-
clusion that those marriages bad been dispensed from
the beginning. He objected on social as well as other
grounds to the proposed measure. The report described
the proposed alteration as contrary to the sense only of
the clergy in Scotland, though it was stated in the evi-
dence that the same feeling extended to the whole people
of Scotland. The report was not a fair exponent of the
evidence. In Ireland these marriages were regarded
with abhorrence. Were they, for the sake of a small
minority, who had gone deliberately, and,with their
eyes open against the laws of the Church and country,
itllogstaokfethaesctoepmnawuhniicthy7 and place
confessedly shock the feel-
place the clergy in such a
position as that they should either be obliged to act
against their consciences, or that they should be left
under an anomalous state of the law to do or not to do
what he believed a great majority of the people thought
contrary to the law of man and of God ?
Sir G. GREY, having intimated to the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) that no op-
position would be offered to bringing in the Bill, did
not intend at that stage to make any observa-
tions. Had there been opposition to the introduction of
the Bill, he should have proposed to state the reasons
why in his individual capacity he was prepared to give
it his support in so far as it related to marriages with a
deceased wife's sister, and why he should approve of
laying on the table of the House a measure for carrying
out an object which, not in terms but in substance, had
been declared by a Royal Commission to be one that
required legislation. If the result of that consideration
which Hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of
giving to the Bill should be any opposition to its further
progress, he should then certainly assign the reasons
which would lead him to vote for the second read-
ihg--(Hear, hear,) He would not say he would go
ue further than the Right Honourable and Learned
Gentleman proposed; but he wished to guard himself
'against being supposed to coincide entirely either inabe
extent to which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentlemen
carried his views, or to the limitations be approved. On
that
.question he (Sir G. Grey) wished to be left free in
forming his judgment till the second reading. Having
read the report of the Commission and examined the
evidence, he did not concur in the reproach thrown on
the Commissioners, or in the remarks of a depreciating
nature with respect to the evidence they had collected.
They had collected a vast nnmher of facts bearing upon
what to him had always been a paramount consideration,
namely, the practical effect of the existing law for the best
interests of society.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said it was the opinion of
interested parties that was given in the evidence, and
that it ought therefore to be disregarded. Interested
Naha were alone capable of giving that information
which the Commission was appointed to collect. It all
the evidence ;A
of interested parties, or of parties who were
suffering from the operation of the present law, had
Med'been set aside, the Commissioners would not have ful-
fill their duty. With respect to the practice of the an-
cient church, the prohibitions were so extensive, absurd,
and unnatural, that a dispensing power bad been intro-
duced which had been exercised for many centuries in
the Roman
Catholic Church; and, without falling back
Upon that practice, it would be impossible to found tiny
f marriage upon the practice of the ancient church.
d ffdt
t o
n
e 1
e" was at present in a state of uncertainty. It
pec
England, from the law which prevailed with
continent of
those marriages over the greater part of the
o
(i)ssilpiencg Lively, its
Europe and in America. It had failed
object f Be c
ne
tprlobject. Certainly effecting that
which had in regard to those marriages
taken place before Lord Lyndhurst's Act, it
was •
: Impossible to deny that the effect of that Act was,
tie
it passed, to render those marriages indissoluble.
tie could not imagine how any one who thought those
Marriages contrary to the Divine law should have con-
curred in that Act. That Act set at rest questions which
created
uneasiness in families by substantially confirm-
tug Such marriages of this description as had previously
been contracted; but prospectively he was afraid as
Uncertainty was proiiuced by the existing state of
the law. On these grounds he thought the House ought
to allow the Bill to be brought in. It would be a matter
for consideration whether the measure would accomplish
the object it proposed to gain, but, for one, he heartily
assented to its introduction.
Mr. NAPIER should give the Bill his most deter-
mined opposition. They bad the mind of the Church of
England, the Church of Ireland, and the Church of
Scotland, and the concurrent Christian testimony of cen-
turies that those marriages were forbidden by the law
of God. If they had to make a choce—were they to
Stoop in deference to the animal passions of those who
had broken the law, or were they to reverence the long-
cherished feelings of the great majority of the people?
There was a religious basis for the present law, and
there were very intelligible reasons for its existence,
the freedom of intercourse which the degrees of affinity
4hd earisanguanity allowed requiring to be guarded by
vcry, hallowed feelings. The whole principle on which
the law of marriage rested would be endangered.
Mr. PLUMPTRE felt the subject to be not unattended
himleith difficulties. More serious inquiry had brought
to a determination to oppose the Bill. The change
The
law would introduce greater evils than now existed.
eekhe children of a deceased wife, whom the measure was
for
intended to benefit, might suffer more than ever;
'Or jealousy and suspicion would be introduced into fa-
tellies such as did not now exist.
tblir• WORTLEY complained of the attack to which
l'eCommiesioners had been subjected by the Hon. and
for Oxford.
Member for Plymouth and the Hon. Member
e(4* Oxford. Seeing who the Commissioners were, it was
ill:natter of surprise that they should have been made
°l3,lects of insinuation, if not of direct imputation.
Sere was really no ground for alleging that the Com-
tsaioners had acted otherwise than impartially. It was
dede a mutter of complaint that the report and the evi-
-1 ace did not sufficiently,show what was the opinion of the
,e:gy of the Church of England with reference to this
q,
li4t,sion; but that was not the fault of the Commissioners.
puiuenishop who presided over the Commission cones
ow eated with the clergy, and did everything in his
°ten, to make them come forward and declare their
tentee,'°43; but they did not do so; and the fair ide-
ate to be drawn from that circumstance was, that
Th,—ergy had not a strong feeling on the 'subject.
e nonourable Member for Oxford thought the
°Menissioners hid acted unfairly in stating in their
eePort that the clergy of Scotland objected to the pro-
- Posed alteration of the law, without adding that the
leeple of that country also took the same view of the
subject; but in the very next paragraph of the report it
was announced that the feeling of the people of the
phited Kingdom was opposed to the change, and surely
ite inhabitants of Scotland came under that category.
wad somewhat ungenerous to charge the Commis-
Sinners upon such grounds with being guilty ofmaeny-
bLuerng,. like a suppreision of the truth. The Hon. rad-
isnoPttreeGssed the
tor Ozfor next alleged that the Commissioners had
suppressed dispensations
fact that there had been
fir'
HENLEY
Church.
to "QNLEY—I said that the fact was not alluded
in L „
Mat
first paragraph of the report.
first .WORTLEY—But, if it was not alluded to in the
ees? Paragraph, it was' in another, in these terms:—
te he Greek Church held such marriages to be inces-
tinous and unlawful,' and not to be allowed by dispense-
iu-rt er otherwise."—(Hear, hear.) It really was un-
vothsteirfisable to char go a peelate. of the Church, amongst
hi, , upon such unsubstantial grounds, with lending
attr.',Belf to a scheme for getting up a case.' Then it
.was
wag
that the Commissioners examined interested parties.
44" not that always the case under similar circum-
e Ile"? Would not a Committee on the navigation• laws
aminex •
interested parties? Would not a Commission to
eorire into the Ecclesiastical Courts do the same ? Did
neen,92e Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
WheleLid corporations examine interested parties ?
loe,:c would they get information if they did not do
kis.; (near, hear.) Why, it was aiked, had the Com-
tep„'Plers confined their attention to marriages within
were green? Because, upon inquiry, they found there
beef riu marriages in any other degree, end like prac-
ham Merl they confined themselves to the matter in
tlek: in conclusion, the Right Hon. and Learned
tap, !°n expressed -a hope that future discussions on this
tap, !Olt would be conducted apart from any feelings of
d"3.'
P,L1".0 was then given to bring in the Bill.
ImALTIES AGAINST CLERGYMEN SECED-
airG FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
seeerr;ll3olJVEltlE, after presenting petitions from
tie, A
ePlaces praying for an atnendment of the Tolera-
aib.o t, preceeded to move the motion of which he had
a 0,4 tieP, " That this House will resolve itself into
18tnrnittee to consider the Act 1 William and Mary,
view t(c°inenonly called the Toleration Act), with a
t;iviits benefit, and
"° its amendment, by extending
chhrg,,,"•ol.nption from all penalties to ministers of the
tee, tw" England declaring themselves to be dissen-
ILmsnerefrorn."• 'lt was not his intention to detain the
any length ui on the subject ; he would confine
se„l eft to a brief teem, nt of the present stated the law,
The naude in w hick he-proposcd to alter and extend it.
re;iegl.o_le,r.ation Art might be called the great charter of
soli „f`l' Liberty in this country, and was the gradual re-
ajou,. eae.ceenviction.that, instead of le rsecution for reli-
eiliti',2ll:lll,rene(•s being a duty, no penalties or civil disa-
titne be imposed on such grounds. From the
the„
_or theeleeth tili that (if Charle, 11. all who took
WIAL of
=wane@ and supremacy, and against the