The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIA.-MENT.

FIO USE OF CO3-IMONS. March 6.

M liRIA.Ou BitAA APJOURNE D DEBATE.
(Continual from our Afternoon Edition of Yesterday.)
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that he wished to
address a few words to the Hous'ain explanation of the
reasons which would determine his.vota upon the present
measure, and in coming to the concluion which he had
done he must say that it was upon different grounds to
any which he had yet heard assignel, and grounds
too which differed very materially from the opi-
nions of many friends fir whose judgment he
entertained the very highest respect. Ile (Mr. Herbert)
had presented a petition against the Bill, numerously
signed by the clergy of the diocese in which the county
he represented was situated, and he observed this differ-
ence in this petition to those presented by persons of the
same class, that it rested not upon religious, but upon
social grounds. He rejoiced to see that that dis-
tinction existed, because he thought they were
not justified in arguing the question solely
upon religious grounds ; and if he could find a
go )d social argument advanced in this discussion, that
was the argument upon which he (Mr. Herbert) should
rely. It had been held from time immemorial by the
Church of England that theso marriages were unlawful,
un'} he for one would give his cordial assent to her right
of denouncing them. But in the House of
Commons, which was not a convocation or a
council, they had no right as well as no
competency to discuss nice theological questions. As he
had said before, if there were any social arguments to
this measure, it was upon those that the oppositlon t.) it
should be grounded, and upon those only. And
between the adoption or the rejection of the mew
sure the House was bound to take the balalce of
;good and the balance of evil, and to decide in which
2C.1:0 the advantage or disadvantage lay. In the pre-
ernt Bill he was glad to perceive that everything
hal been avoided at all likely to interfere with
t`e Church of England. In his Bill of last year
his Right Honourable Friend had, he thought,
with great impolicy, included in his Dill clauses
withdrawing clergymen who offended against this Bill
from the authority of the Church of England. With
another Chtuch, which was in part connected with the
State-, the Right Honourable Gentleman had not dared
to interfere ; with that Church only, which was
entirely tied up by the State, and wag wholly
in its hands, had he meddle]. So far as
thAs Church of England was concerned, it was
left untouched by the operation of the Bill, and he re-
joiced to find that the broad principle of the measure
would not interfere either with the laws which that
Church, or any religious body, had laid down for its
government. Other religious bodies, who had no
laws or canons which restricted them from con-
tracting marriages of this description, were
clearly subject to a religious disability by the civil law
as it now stood. If, socially speaking, it could be made
out that morality would be endangered by the Bill of his
Right lion. Friend, there would certainly be a good rea-
son for maintaining this religious disability; but it had
not ben so est iblished, at least so far as he had
understood the arguments. He felt, as marriage
was a civil right, that they were bound to make
it co-ex:easive with the opinions and conditions of tLe
people, and on that ground he had come to the conclu-
sion to support the Bill.—(Hear.)