The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

restitution of cc ijugal rights, that persons should
live together whose marriage the Church eon•
sidered incestuous. One anomaly in the Bid,
as it stood, was, that any clergyman might con-
tract such a marriage though he might not Le
compelled to solemnize it between other parties. A
clergyman could not refuse to administer the rites of the
Church to parties whose marriage the Church deemed
incestuous, if the present clause were agreed to. Nay
more, the Church, both of England and Scotland, must
consider persons contracting such marriage as disquali-
fied for receiving the sfeAnmunion. By the 109th canon
it was declared that the communion should not be ad-
ministered to persons guilty of incest ; and by another
canon, the 99th, marriages within the prohibited degrees
were declared to be incestuous. One objection to the
clause might be that it would introduce an anomalous
distinction between members of the Church of England
anti the members of other religions bodies. But such an
anomaly was as nothing compared to those in the Bill.
Another objection might be, that the amendment would
induce parties contracting such marriages to become
Dissenters. For his own part, he should say let such
parties become Dissenters rather than continue professed
members of a Church which considered weal as guilty
of incest.—(Hear.) He thought they ought to go as far as
they could to relieve members of the Cnurch of England
and of the Church of Scotland who had contracted such
marriages from the effistes which would follow the ope-
ration of the Bill as it stood. It ought not to be tur-
gotten that the Bill was one which would operate on the
whole community. There could be no greater fallacy
than to argue that the Bill would only affect the parties
who contracted these rnarriages.—(Hear.) It would
affect all those who did not wish to contract such mar-
riages in the altered feelings and relations it would pro-
duce towards sisters-in-law. It was on these grounds
that be now begged to propose the amendment of which
he had given notice.—(Cheers.)
The question having been put,
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he would not follow his Hon.
and Learned Friend into the argument which be had
stated so ably to the Committee. He thought his Hon.
and Learned Friend mistaken as to the legal effect of
the Bill. With regard to the amendment, he regarded
it as one for the extension of ecclesiastical authority.—
(Hear.) He had never dreamt that his Hon. and
Learned Friend would propose an amendment, the effect
of which would be to sanction a marriage of this kind
with reference to civil purposes, and at the same time ex-
pose the parties to the censure of the Church courts, and
to doing penance in a white sheet. He thought his Learned
Friend had tailed to show that the clergy were not at
perfect liberty to exercise their discretion in the
solemnization of marriages if it were not against their
consciences. The whole jurisdiction of the ecclesiasti-
cal courts was for spiritual purposes; the present Act of
Parliament was solely for temporal purposes.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether it was proposed to
divide ?
Mr. R. PALMER intimated his intention to take
the sense of the House.—(Loud cries cf " Divide.")
Sir R. H. INGLIS rose amid much noise and cries of
" Divide," and " Withdraw." He maintained that his
Hon. and Learned Friend did not propose to increase
the ecclesiastical authority, but merely to leave it where
it stood at the present moment. The allegation which
had been made that the opponents of the present Bill
wanted to sustain and extend ecclesiastical authority
was not founded upon justice or fact. It might as well
be called a question of free trade. In no respect was
the freedom of any man affsoted by the present eccle-
siastical law, except so E'er as it represented the will of
God. Again, he repeated that the opponents of the
preLeat Bill did not seek to increase the ecclesiastical
power, but merely to have it left where it was.
Mr. S. WORTLEY briefly explained.—(Divide.)
After a few words from Sir F. THESIGER, who said
there was an inconsistency in the Bill with respect to
the jurisdiction of the civil and ecclesiastical courts,
Mr. S. WORTLEY again briefly explained.—(Cries
of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. COCKBURN said it would be a most mis-
chievous course of legislation to pursue to array the
ecclesiastical against the civil tribunals of the country.—
( Hear, hear.) The former did not stand so very high at
present in public estimation as to place them in opposi-
tion to the civil tribunals.—(Hear, hear.) If the Bill
was a bad one, let it be thrown out at once; but he asked
them not to introduce such a confusion in the jurispru-
dence of the country as might be done by adopting the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Plymouth,
Mr. OSWALD was understood to support the amend-
ment.
Mr. P. WOOD said that it was observed the present
Bill did not propose to take away the jurisdiction of the
ecclesiastical cote ts. That was a reason why the pro-
position of the Hon. Member fir Plymouth, to make the
Bill consistent, ought to entertained. He was anxious
to see the mode of proceeding adopted in the ecclesias-
tical courts reformed, and he thought they bad reason
to complain of the Government for not having carried
out those promises made a session or two ago in that
respi ct. No step had been taken about those courts,
although it should be admitted that their practice wits
in a most unsatisfactory state.—(Hear, hear, and cries
of " Divide.")
Mr. FORBES supported the amendment.
Mr. COCKBURN said the proposed clause did not
relate merely to ecclesiastical causes. All the subjects
of the realm contracting marriages which it was the
object of the Bill to reader legitimate would, by the
proposed clause, he liable to ecclesiastical censure on
cantracting such marriage after the passing of the

measure.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN and Mr.
LOCKHART
Mr. iV ORTLEY said that his intention was in the
fullest possible degree to preserve the discipline of the
Church nf Scotland.
M. L W said, if he understood the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman correctly, the Church of Scotland
..uti the Free Church of Scotland would retain the power
of ecclesiastical censure. Did the Hon. and Learned
tleritleinan mean to extend that power to the Church of
England?
Mr. WOR MEV said, with one single exception,
every rulesiastical censure now exercised by the Church
of Scotland and the United Churches of England and
Ireland would I.e preserved.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER totally dissented from
the construction put on the Bill by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman.
The Committee then divided when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 103
Against it 145
Majority... ...
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 were also agreed to.
Or. clause 6 being proposed,
Colonel CHAT I'ERTON moved a proviso to the
effect that nothing in the Act contained shall extend,
or be construed to extend, to Ireland. Tne Honour-
able and Gallant Member continued to address the
Committee at some length in support of the motion; but
his observations were totally inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. FARREIt moved that the Chairman should then
report progress and ask leave to sit again. He had not
heard a word of what had fallen from the Hon. and Gal-
lant Colonel; and he thought it was time that they
should leave the unwholsome atmosphere of the House
and retire to their beds.—(A laugh.)
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the motion that the
Chairman should then report progress. He believed that
lion. Members did not know what was going on in the
House that evening, what they were opposing, or what
they were supporting.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY entreated the House to treat
that question with the seriousness which its importance
deserved. He would not then enter into any elaborate
answer to the speech of the Hon. and Gallant Member
f r Curk. He should, however, observe, that the objec-
tions stated by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman applied
t.) the principle of the measure, and not merely to the
proposal that Ireland should be exempt from its opera-
tion. He had further to state, that the Archbishop of
Dublin, Dr. Whately, the first ecclesiastical authority in
Ireland, strongly approved of the Bill, and in one diocese
in that country eight beneficed clergymen had expressed
a similar opinion upon the subject.
Mr. F. MAULE supported the motion for excluding
Ireland from the operation of the Bill. lie believed that
the great majorit), not only of the Protestants, but also
of the Roman Catholics of that country, were decidedly
opposni to the measure.
Mr. NAPIER said that both the Protestants and the
Roman Catholics of Irelstid were almost unanimous in
their disapproval of the Bill; and he certainly thought
that it would be most improper to force it on them
against their deep and settled convictions.
Colueel THONIPSON said he very much doubted
A hether the opinion of the people, either of Ireland or
,if Scotland, was so decidedly hostile to the measure as
some Hoe. Gentleman appeared to imagine.
Mr. F MAULE said that a paid agent had been ram-
bling up and down Scotland to get up petitions against
he Bill, and bad succeeded in getting up one amongst
his cos_stituents—(Cheers and laughter)—but when he
attempted to get up a public meeting he could not find a
respectabl- person to take the chair.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. SADLEER believed it would be impossible to
raise any feeling in favour of the Bill. On no one sub-
ject had imperial legislation been more unfortunate than
on the subject of marriage. A large and influential por-
tion of the people consisted of Presbyterians, who viewed
the Bill with abhorrence, and he bad consulted several
Roman Catholics, who expressed the greatest anxiety
that Irish Members should do all in their power to con-
fine the operation of the Bill to England.—(Hear, hear.)
The House ought to be careful not to force on the
people of Ireland an alteration repugnant to their
social habit., abhorrent to their religious convic-
tions, and which might lead to social disruption and
convulsion.—(Hear.)
The O'GORMAN MAHON protested against the
accuracy of the statements made by the Hon. and
Learned Members for Dublin and Carlow, and against
the conclusion which they had drawn from those state-
ments. Had there been any dissonance of opinion
amongst the Catholic body, they would have commu-
nicated their sentiments to the House. He called on
them not to interfere with that discriminating power
which had been so long and so wisely exercised by his
Church.
Mr. MONSELL said, every class in Ireland, whether
Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, or members of the Es-
tablished Church, were opposed to the Bill. The beet
proof of this was to be found in the fact that the promo-
ters of it, with ample pecuniary means at their command,
and with emissaries in every part of the kingdom, had
either sent none to Ireland, or, if they had, their success
had been such that they had not obtained a single sig-
nature. That having been the case, the people of Ire-
land and Scotland, and a very large portion of the people
of England being opposed to it, he thought they ought to
reject it altogether.
Colonel THOMPSON (who rose amidst loud cries of
" Spcke") asked if it was contended that the Roman
Catholic Church granted dispensations for acts which
were against the general morals and general good of so-
ciety? If not, the Irish Catholics must admit what
their Church admitted under certain cguditicus was a

•.• -42