The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-19 00:00:00

MENT BILL

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the sus-
pension of the standing order, and the bill was then read
a second time.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS (SCOTLAND)

(No. 2) BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of ARGYLL, the stand•
ing order was suspended, and this bill also read a second
time.

Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes to
seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTmaDAY.)
Me SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

On the motion of Col. PINNEY, the standing orders
were suspended to enable Lord Rivers' Estate Bill to be
read a third time and paßoed.
MERSEY CONSERVANCY AND DOCKS
_ (Na. 2) BILL.

Mr. J. EVVART nao7ed the appointment of the fol.
lowing select committee relative to the Mersey Conser-
vancy aryl Docks (No. 2) Bill :—Mr. Fitzroy, Mr.
'wart, and Mr. Kinglake.
Agreed to.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

(STAMP DUTIES.)
The house went into committee and agreed to the fol-
lowing resulritions

"That the same amount of stamp duty as is now pay-
able on the admission of a proctor to any ecclesiastical
court, shall be payable by every person to be admitted
as a proetor in the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial
Causes, or in the Court of Probate, who shall not have
been prcvii.usly admitted as a proctor in the
other of such courts, or in an ecclesiastical or admiralty
court, a!,d have paid the stamp duty in respect thereof.
" That every person who shall practise as a proctor or
as a solicitor or attorney in the said Court of Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes, or the said Court of Probate,
shall obtain an annual cF:rtific de to authorise him so to
do under the stamp duty acts in the same manner as
proctors practising in the Ecclesiastical or Admix. •lty
Courts, and solicitors an'l attorneys practising in her
Maje-t 's Ciurts at Westminster, ara now required to
do by toe Said acts or any of them.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The c rariiivee on this i,ill was resumed.

0.1 clams(' 5:3,

Sir W. IiEITiTCOTE said that he very much
regrettel te iefottn the house that his friend
and colleague ( \ir. Gladstone) who bad an im-
portant amendment next in order on the paper
for the consi ieration of the committee, had lately
been sufferit g under a severe domestic affliction,
which was tee cause of his abeence from the House
a considerable portion of yeAerdny Toe apnrehonsion
that it would c iuse his abeence from the House the
remainder of the seseion bad, he reoretteil to Pay, actu-
ally occurred, and it devolved on him (Sir W. Heathcote)
to move the important amendment of his right hon. col-
league and Mena to this clause. The clause as it stood
called on the clergy to marry divorced parties, which
would not only be repugnant to the feelings of the
majority of thkm, but (as most of them belie /ed) contrary
to the law of God. To relieve the clergy from the diffi-
culty in which I,h ey found themselves placed by this clause,
his right hon. friend tad given notice of this amendment
which was to the effect that the marriage of divorced
persons shout' 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 could be found voluntarily to perform it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL regretted the absence
of Mr. Gladstone owing to the domestic affliction re-
ferred to, who, be retmirked, was one of the chief orna-
ments of their debates. (Hear.) The amendment was
objectionable in many respects. It would inflict great
injury on the innocent husband or wife seeking to marry
again, or an innocent person marrying the adulte-ser or
adulteress, as the caee might be. It would also have
the effect, if carried, of going far to confirm the principle
that marriage was iudiesoluble. The amendment, i:
carried, would only make the marriage valid on being
solemnised in a particular form, which would be a great
hardship on the parties, especially if they were Dissen-
ters, and clergymen or Dissenting ministers were willing
ti perform the marriage ceremony. A woman marrying
°f
unknowingly a divorced man by the for of the Church
fl form gland would by the amendment be put in the posi-
thin of a co
lle and the children would be illegitimate.
divorced on thgge ter
that the committee should not decide the
divorced persona
sinarendment, but first consider whether
d,muld have power to marry again, and
on that bet r gcia ei the affirmative, then consider
whether the clergy „`f
kitrehurch of England should or
should not be exempted
teolemniaing such marriages
when they were reluctrert
so. He asked the
evoitiliraw his amendment.
right honourable baronet to
Mr. B. HOPE supported
tnZn,idment. 11,000
clereymen of the Church of
t the clause, and he thought soraeh" petitioned
agains deference should
be paid to the it feelinee
Mr. NEW DEGATE considered that nnthin
justify the b'll in its present form, and urged ttlec_2,llnd
mittee to adopt the amendment. He called upon
• ence to religion as this
committee to give due inflames a corree-
tive to the dangerous tendency to the bill.
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS said that he bad 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 B'nouli oppose
it.

Lord J. MANNERS enforced in a lengthened speech,
the duty of the committee to respect the conscienti,us
scruples of the c!ergy, as well as numbers of the laity,
on the enmpni.nry marriage of the guilty parties.
Mr. ADAMS expressed a hope that the amendment
would be withdrawn. He considered it was essential
that a religious sanction should be observed in the so•
lemnisation of marriage—whether of members of the
Church of England or of Dissenters. (Hear, hear.) He
also objected to the amendment because it set a brand
on innocent parties, as being unworthy to partake of the
religious ceremony of marriage. He thought liberty of
•oonscience should be given to the clergy in this respect,
and where clergymen were willing they should be