The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-09 00:00:00

The ArchbiNhop of TIJAM.—My Lords, it is with the ut-
most paikthat I offer myseli to the notice of your Lordships
which Lsltould not have done, had tt not been for the very
direct manner in which the body, of which I form a part,
were called upon by the Noble and Learned Lord Oro spoke
last yesterday., My Lfird,,•, I will 1,, 0,, zeti vme
of-the tith charter of the Gospel i‘c",rdit, to 6t. Matthew.

My mind has long been n,acte up to vote against the Divorce
Clause from that very verse but if I csn'sliew that the Illus.;
trious Lady whose conduct l as been so long tinder considera-
tion had been put away by ner husband; it I also sheet front
the Holy Scriptures a siolemn denunciation horn. the law
against such putting away, then shall I shew sufficient ground
to induce site tievoteagainst the Divorce Chose, which would
release the King from the marriage contract , and leave hint at
liberty to many again.- That such a putting away of the
wife did take place is abundantly evident from the letter of
the husband, to which alone I would beg lease to refrr.-
1 he
denunciathip-to which I Intro alluded is in the second
chaieter of the prophet ).kialachi,.- when for literally puttirg
'away a wife, the face of the_ Lord.was turned away front the
people, and he regarded not their offerings. The templet re-
sounded with the lamentations of the women; and rite Pro-
. phei established his charge against them as a crying sin, by
reminding them of the fust institution of marriage. The Cod.
of Israel bath said, "'he hatet h alt putting. away." My
Lords,l stand here a mqst nnwillingJ (Wee in this cause, and I
will candidly confess to your Lordships, that nothing but force
and the heavy penalties which your ,Lordships have attached
to absence, would havecompelled me to attend this distressing
ipvestigation. I have been brought here by compulsioo—
. fenced front the must important duties, which po one but my-
' self could be called upon to perform; and which have been
suspended three months in consequence of my abst :.ce. But,
however reluctantly 1 have conic here, I have paid every atten-
tion in my power to the whole of the evidence on both sides—
to the i•ery -able arguments of Counsel, and to the eloquent
speeches of Noble Lords in the various views they have token
of this cause. I have attended .every day--every bonr.,—aod,
I may almost say, every minute; and I have voted tot the-se-
;011(11-Oadillg of this Bill, because no other measure was'lie-
fore the Bouse,'in whirl' I could declare that a clear, satis-
factory, .arid irresistable ease had been•made out of the guilt
of the Queen. But as to this Divorce Clause, my Lords, I
can never reconcile myself to give lit my sanction ;• and if it
goes out of this Committee as a part of the cannot give
it my further support ; for I would rather have the conduct
of the Queen to. pass unnoticed, than that a divorce should
he added to her degradation.
The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH presented himself to
their Lordships, in consequence Of the-appeal made to the
Bishops by a Noble anal Learned 'Lord, and the earnest de-
sire which be had expressed to hear the opinions of •thiase
Bishops who had not yet delivered their sentiments on this
subject. But, for that appeal he should have given no opi-
• niun on the present occasion, especially after the debates'
which had taken place since he first dieted himself to the
notice of their Lot &hips. He had felt chusiderable y
ill entering on this question, and the more because the Nid.,le
1 and Learned Lord,. whose comprehensive, mind might he r -

. . .
preted to embrace every pubject connected with it, !.td
slated ltirwelt to labour under great difficulty in deciding pit
it. Indeed he had never felt a greater difficulty in entering
on the examination of the que.tion, whether the Dicoice

Clause Might to stand in the Bill Or not. It liad:eccv been
his desire, that if possible the clause should be nmitted, not
that he felt any doubt as to its legality; fur lie was sure that,
incases of adultery, divorce was sanctioned, as well by the
lawiof God, as by those of man, and he wag compelled to e-
s
case the itt ariyu
g h he
bdeiedn csoli a"n'illybpgrtrievaelti."l.iinu't ttltaetr ei's)V e“r'ei
in his mind, objections to the manner in -which it had been
in!roduced. lie thought a divorce ought not to be made a
pit of a Bill of Pains and Petialtiis. On the other 'hand, he
.vas unable to comprehend bow her Majesty should cease to ;be
Queen, and yetsemain the wife of the King ; and bete arose
the difficulty which pressed on his mind. He could not con-
ceive bow a Clause depriving her of the title of Queen, would
be consistent with suffering her to remain wife of his Ma-
jesty. The wife of the King was, to all intents and purposes.
the Queen Consort be therefore desired to know, reinai.ii.g
in:this,situation, by what possible enactment she could be
deurtved 01 the title of Queen ? The Divorce Clause wade
the 1.111 intelligible, its object being to degrade, hut without
that, or some Clause in its place, it would not he distinct ly
expressed to what the degradation of her Majesty was to coo-
sist. tie was for taking a middle course. Instead of agree-
ing to the Divorce Clause (which would lead to consequences
that many of their Lordships did nut seem to conternplatej,
he would ask if a Clause could not be introduced less powerful
in its operation, yet, at-the same time, sufficient to give etfeim
to the sentence of degradation, though free from the objce•
tions which applied to the Divorce Clause ? The objectimis
to the Divorce Clause were chiefly of a relit;--OUS nattily; lot
as matrimony, though unquestionably a religious institution,
was also a civil contract, and gave civil rights, he would ask
if those civil rights could not be annulled, leaving the reli-
gions part of the contract untouched by this Bill ? Any Clause
that might lie proposed to ellect this should have his Support.
He was too little acquainted with the legal terms in %%Inch
such an enactment should he proposed to frame a Clause him-

self, and he therefore should content himself with thimine;
out this suggestion to those whose-legal knowleitge could LC
beneficially applied to it. The Noble Earl et•the head of tha
Tr'eastny had spoken of something of the kind yesterday;. and
to him he would leave it to propose such an alteration in die
Bill.

The Archbishop of YORK. felt called upon to say, that he
had never meant to assert (it was impossible for hint to do•so)
that adultery was not considered in the Scripture a sufficient
ground for a divorce. Is;Lit it was his conclusion, from the
general langtyake of Stripture, with respect to the sanctity of
the marriage union, and the reciprocal obligations which it
imposed, Duane could nut conscientiously recumMenti iu this
case the adoption of the divorce clause.
Lsrd REDESIMLE said, he admitted that marriage was a
civil contract, and also a- religious contract, hut it was also
in the nature of a religiims vow, and from that vow it was
that no human power could relieve the parties. The only
question was, Wnether.by the adultery of the wife that vow
was not discharged as to the husband ? But as marriage
was a civil contract, it affected other patties besides those
who contracted; tor instance, the children born of ; he-wife-;
a divorce was to regulate the civil rights, and so tar only did
any divotTe clause in "any Bit properly extend. Ile there-
tore thought the objections to this clause arose chiehy from -a
misconception of the nature of a Divorce Bill.. If marriage
were merely a Common contract, the two parties might dis-
charge it of themselves; bur the contract of marriage was
one in which other patties were affected, and even the whole
state.• lie wished to know how they could substitute any
thing instead of the present clause, which would not in effect
1), a divoice clause' lie thought-it manifestly improper that
a person in the degraded state in which it was proposed
to place her Majesty should remain wile of the King. The
Queen Consort was a public character, and it was due to the
public that' Pei-so!) so degraded shOuld nut continue in that
situation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had felt great difficulty in
approaching this subject, and be considered that lie owed an
apology to the Reverend Bishops for appealing to them as he
had done ; but he had felt it necessary to the discharge of
his duty, to inform his mind by hearing the sentiments of
those who, from their sit oat iss, were better acquainted with
the nat ore of the religious contract, before be ventured to
express hikown opinion. He owed a similar apology to their
Lordships generally, for the delay which he had taken the
liberty to propose. .Pe had been induced to propose -this
delay, the rather because the Noble Lord at the head of the
Treasury had wade a declaration by which he conceived