The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-18 00:00:00

VON BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the Com
MollB' amendmentA ti) this bill be agreed to.
Lotd WYNFORD recommended their lordships no
to agree to the amendmentp.
LEFT SITTING I

ROUSE OF COMMONS—(This Day.)
The SrEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
VA.TE BUSINESS.

On the motion of Col. PINNEY, the sanding orders
were suspended to enable Lord Rivers' E,tate Bill to be
read a third time and tamed.
MERSEY CONSERVANCY AND DOCKS
(No. 2) BILL. . . . . .

, •
Mr. J. EIVART moved the appointment of the fol
lowing select c,mmittee relative to the Mersey Conger
vancy and Docks (No. 2) Bill :—Mr. Fitzroy, Mr,
Ewart, and Mr. Kinglake.

Agreed to.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
(STAMP DUTIES.)
Tho house went into committee and agreed to the fol-
lowing resclutions
"That the samo amount of stamp duty as is now pay-
able on the admission of a proctor to any ecclesiastical
court, shall he payable by every person to be admitted
as a proetor in the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial
Cause?, or in the Court of Probate, who shall not bare
been previously admitted as a proctor in the
other of such courts, or in an ecclesiastical or admiralty
court, and have paid the stamp duty in respect thereof.
"That every person who shall practise as a proctor or
at a solicitor or attorney in the sail Court of Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes, or the said C ,uct of Probate,
shall obtain an annual c,rtitic de to authorise him so to
do under the stamp duty ants in the same manner as
procters practi,,ing in the Ecclesiastical or Adruir ilty
Court., and solicitors and attorneys practising, in her
Majest 'e Courts at Westminster, are now required to
do by the said acts or any of them.
DIVORCE AND MATIII NIONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The committee on this bill was resumed.
On clause &3,
Sir NV. DEATFICOTE said that he very much
regretted to inform the house that big friend
and colleague (Mr. Gladstone) who bad an im-
portant amendment next in order on the paper
for the consideration of the committee, bad lately
been sufferirg under a severe domestlc aftetion,
which was toe cause of his absencs from the flou,e
a considerable poi Lion of yesterday The sport heosion
that it would c,u,e his absence from the House the
remainder of the session bad, he re,retted to say, ac' u-
ally occurred, and it devolved on him (Sir NV. lleathcote)
to move the important amendment of his right hon. col-
league and friend to this clause. The c!ause as it stood
called on the clergy to marry divorced parties, which
would not only be rerognart to the feeling's of Oe
majority of them, but (as most of them belie ied) contrary
to the law of God. To relieve the clergy from the diffi-
culty in which they found themselves placed by this clause,
his right hon. tiiend 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 curds be found voluntarily to perform it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, regretted the absence

of Mr. Gladstone owing to the dor:estie affction re•
ferred to, who, he remA.ked, was one of the chief orna•
merits of their debates. (Hear.) The amendment wl3
ohj-ctionable in many respects. It would inlet great
irjury on the innocent husband or wife seeking to marry
again, or an innocent person marrying the adulterer or
adulteress, as the ca-e mit;ht be. It would also have
the effect, it' carried, of going far to c mSrrn the princip's

that marriaee was icdissoluble. The amendment,
carried, would only make the marriage valid on heir g
solemni,ed in a particular form, which would be a great
hardship nn the parties, especially if they were Dissen-
ters, and clergymen or liisenting ministers were wiling
t> p rform the m rriage •rerco .y. A woman marrying
unknowingly, a divorced man by the krin of the Church
of England, would by the amendment be put in the
Con of a concubine, and the children would be illegitima •
He ruggezted 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, thf T 1 consid(r
whetter the clergy of the Church of England should or
should not be exempted from solenani.,ing such marriages
when they were reluctant to do so. He asked the
right honourable baronet to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. B. HOPE supported the amendment. 11,OCO
clergymen of the Church of England hal petitioned
against the clause, and he thought some deference should
be paid to tb.ir ferline's.

Mr. NEWDEGATE considered that nothing cau'd
justify the bill in its present form, and urged the cJal-
tnittee to adopt the amendment. He called upon the
committee to give due influence to religion al a correc-
tive to the dangerous tendency to the WI
Mr. D. GRIFFI HIS said thai, he had intended to
move an amendment prohibiting the guilty party from
being married by the forms of the Church of England,
but considering the arguments of the Attorney-General
unanswerable against the amendment he should oppose
it.

Lord J. MANNERS enforced in a lengthened speech,
the duty of the committee to respect the conscientious
scruples of the clergy, as weil a 3 numbers of the laity,
en the compulsory marriage of the guilty parties.
Mr. ADAMS expressed a hope that the amendment
would be withdrawn. He considered it was essential
Itat a religious sanction should be observed in the so
mnisation of marriage—whether of members of the
Church t "England or of Di.senters. (llear, hear.) He
also objected
~t‘o.. the amendment because it set a brand
on innocent
religious es,.::o'nles, as being unworthy to partake of the
conscience shouldYbeof marriage, Ile thought liberty of 1
ymeiveti to the clergy in this respect.
and where cler
permitted to perfee, the
willing they should be
of the divorced par
marriage ceremony on either
marriage. ties wishing again te contract
Loid LOVAINE would vote for t,lr amendment if it
was pressed to a divieion,thoughi,.attbeught it wooll
evotrced ersons.
inflict great hard•hip on the innocent
"lid
b p
Mr BRISCOE hoped there w
the clause, because it was undesirable either° division on
I:erre d
ein a: a triumph on this important point. li,PanYn:hould
the conscientious scruples of the clergy should be
ei
spected, and he would rather that the suggestion
o
the Attorney General should be adopted.
Mr. SPOONER asked the right hon. bare net (Sir
W. Heathcote) to withdraw the amendment, because it
would inflict injury on the innocent parties. If it had
been confined to the guilty he should have voted in its
favour.
Mr. MALINS also hoped the amendment would be
withdrawn that the sense of the committee might be
taken on the question as suggest -Al by the learned Attor-
ney-General.

W.EIEATIICOTE regretted that the discourage-
ment be thought should be
given to the marriage of
divorced parties was not entertained by the committee,
and as it appeared to be their wish to raise the question
relative to the clergy in another shape he would wits-
draw his amendment.

The amendment was then witbrawn.
Major WARBURTON moved at the end of clau-e
53 :—Provided always, and be it enacted, that no priest
or deacon shall 1r• liable to any suit, penalty, or cen•
■ore for refusing or consenting to solemnise the mar i ge
of any person who shall be divorced by virtue of tL.,B
act He considered his amend mint Was necessary, be•