The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-07-02
ACTION DELETING BRITISH MARRIAGE
 VOWS IS TAKEN
Objection to Anglican Marri- age Vows Growing, Prior to Expected Change atHands
 of Church Assembly
By NORMAN H. WATSON

Special Correspondent to The Age-Herald GCo0yright, l922, by The Ago heraidO
 London, July Mot least of the terrors of getting married is the frank-not to say brutally frank wording of the old Anglican mar riage service. The growing objec- tion to it has been directed less against the principals implied than the straightforward Elizabethan way of expressing them. The national church assembly during it's summer sessions this year will consider-and most probably indorse-sweeping changes proposed by a special com kmittee headed by the Bishop of Gloucester.
 The words instituted by God in the time of mans innocency" are de- ieted, as are the words to satisfy mems carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no un- derstanding." Three reasons are given in the exhortation for the ordaining of marriage. In the first the principal change Is the substi- tuition of "the increase of mankind" for the procreation of children" The second reason, Expressed in words which are offensively out spoken" has been modernized to read: Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed alright; that those who are not called by God to remain unmarried, but by Him are led to ths holy estate. should continue therein in pureness of liv- ing.t
 Bride More Concern-d
 That. 1t is maintained, will fall more delicately on the ears of shy young bride: but she must as of yore say yes to the question: "Wilt thou obey him and serve him?" The prayer for children loses the word, "We beseech thee. assist with thy blessings these two persons that they both may be fruitful in pro- creation of children" and there Is substituted, ''Bestow. we beseech thee, upon these two persons the heritage and gift of children"
 The new version will not be issued immediately for general use, even if the assembly adopts it. but will be used if requested and with the permission of bishops.
 Subject to Penalty
 Another committee. this one com posed of eminent jurists appointed by the lord chancellor, scrapped principle of law that has been &C., cepted for some 15 centuries. when 1t recommended that married woman should be held guilty of crime. even though she committed it in the presence of her husband. It Is practically certain that will be the recommendation passed by Par liament. For centuries 1t was held that a wife could not be considered legally responsible for any crime. but governments of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries limited the woman's privilege" by inflict- ing penalties .n wives for treason and murder. Nevertheless in most felonines and misdemeanors a wife could plead the Coercion" law. based on the theory that sh is her husbands property, an irresponsible creature, like child or lunatic.
 The committee made it's report less than two months after it's ap- pointment, pointing out witt. under standable pride that the whole busi- ness had cost the government $22.50.
 The report seems as significant of the times as the action of the House of Lords in slamming the door in the face of Lady Rhondda seems an achronistic. Lady Rhondda was the first to claim the right to sit, as peeress. In March the committee on privileges voted to 1 in flavor. but when it's recommendation came up before the House, almost certain of being passed, the lord chancellor interyened and moved 1t back for reconsideration. The second com mittee voted no---without exception. Women were angrily declaring that the government has not kept its promises: It has abolished the women police. failed to apply the principle of equality to women in the civil service. and now permits a committee of lords to disqualify an applicant solely on the grounds of her sex. Lawyers want to know. if lord doesn't exercise a public function" what function does he exerciss2