New-York tribune., 1903-05-01
BOYCOTT ON ST. Marks.
Bishop of London's announcement
4ppIauded.

London. April 3O.-At the night session of the
London Diocesan Conference yesterday the
Bishop of London. the Right Rev Arthur f.
Ingram made statement to the effect that he
had thrice sent for an explanation from the
Rev. Mr.. Hadden regarding the Vanderbilt
Rutherfurd wedding. and that none had been re-
ceived
The galleries and the floor of the little church
house in the shadow of Westminster Abbey.
were crowded in anticipation OF the Bishops
announcement. Arising amid intense silence the
prelate said he had hoped to present to the con-
ference an explanation from the officiating cler-
gyman in the matter of the grave scandal
which recently had occurred in the diocese.
He could only surrnise that family bereave-
nent the death OF a child. was responsible for
MI Hadden having entirely ignored the Bisnops g
letters and messages. The Bishop characterized
the use of ST. Marks Church FOR the perform
ance Of the ceremony as constituting a grave
moral scandal" and expressed his determination
not to enter the church until due reparation had
been made.
The prelate then briefly recapitulated the con-
tention OF the chancellor of the diocese. that ne
(the chancellor) was obliged by law TO issue
license to divorced persons if any clergyman
could be found to marry them, that the chancel-
lor's Jurisdiction entirely independent Of the
Bishops, and that the license went out in the
chanceIlor's name and not In the Bishop s.
Continuing, the pre!ate said:
Il only remains for me to express my own
opinion of the great scandal which has been per-
petrated in the dioeese-nore important than
anv question of ritualistic observance because
of the moral scandal involved.
The Bishop then read extract from the de-
cision of the Lambeth Conference Of 1883 in
condemnation of the practice Of marrying
divorced persons, in which IL is recommended
that in case the innocent party to the divorce
should desire to remarry. the question Of the
church service should be left to the Bishop Of
the diocese.
There has been considerable question on this
point" continued the prelate, "and the opinion
of the Church has been strongly against even
this concession The law does not compel the
loan of a church, and much less of a clergy
man to solenlnize such marriage. The present
scandal is involved, but hope it will not be
without good effect II it directs the attention OF
the entire world to the attitude Of the Church on
this subject and emphasizes the fact that the
proceedings of the chancellor are entirely be-
yond the control of the Bishop.
II hereby express my earnest wish that the
clergy do rot celebrate such marriages, and L
certainly shall not enter st. Marks Church until
reparation has been made for the Insult 'hus
offered TO the diocese"
The Bishops remarks were vigorously ap-
piauded, and the session ended with the passage
of a vote of thanks. moved by the Suffragan
Bishop of London.
Father Black, the Protestant clergyr1a
whose protests against the marrying of divorced
persons have attracted considerable attention.
has written another letter to the newspapers on
the subject of the Observation-Disclosures we'd
ding, announcing that rs Secretary White Of the
United States Embassy has not replied 10 MS
hIadf fO "
papers asking "if the Americans who respect re-
iigion think the secretary Of their embassy ought
to ioin with disohedieRt clergyman in back
doo~ Mot to outwit the Archbishop of Canter-
bury and the Bishop of London?