of deposition is a legal deposition. I am not saying that if you look into the Canons of the Church you will not find many difficulties, and that it would be almost impossible to find an exact precedent. But this I do say, that the principle underlying the ancient Canons is that substantial justice should be done. For example, in the Canon which provides that twelve Bishops are necessary to decide on the deposition of another Bishop, it is also, if I remember, provided that six Bishops are necessary for the deposition of a Priest. If, then, we think substantial justice can be done to a Priest by less than the six Bishops, we need not insist, in the case of such a large area having such a small number of Bishops, that any specific number should be collected together to secure a just judgment. There is one point that has raised some difficulty in your lordships' mind-namely, that which regards Bishop Twells. I understand that in 1861 advice was given to Bishop Twells not to take any active part with regard to the affairs of the Church within the Queen's dominions. But if I mistake not, the whole relations of the Queen to the Colonial Church since that time have been altered, and therefore the advice which was given under different circumstances can no longer hold good, and the Metropolitan of Capetown most wisely threw himself upon the historical precedents of the Church of Christ, and felt that there was no restriction which would prevent Bishop Twells from sitting in the Synod and acting as a neighbouring Bishop. If we look back to the history of our own Church, when Augustine came here to preach the Gospel, it was not believed that his power was limited merely to the dominions of the King in Kent. Far from it. His power was to extend over every Bishop whom he consecrated or appointed to any see; and so, if only on the ground of precedent, I think the Bishop of Capetown has acted with the same wisdom which has regulated his conduct throughout this most difficult and complicated affair, in summoning Bishop Twells-a man who was entirely free from all possible suspicion of being influenced by mere party feeling-to assist in giving judgment in the case. There is only one other point on which I will venture to say a word at this moment. I am quite sure that the feeling which has animated me throughout is the feeling which has animated all your lordships. We should have been more ready to speak on the subject, more ready to vote on the subject, more ready to offer the expression of our sympathy to the great Metropolitan of South Africa, if we had not felt that Dr. Colenso had inflicted so grave and serious an injury on our Church that we could hardly trust our feelings to act with justice towards him. The conduct of Dr. Colenso has, I fear, shaken the faith of many of the members of our Church, and the consequence has been that persons who have been obliged to deal with cases where the faith of our members is shaken feel it difficult to deal with strict justice with regard to Dr. Colenso. I can testify most distinctly that that has been my own fear. There is one further consideration connected with the decision. This trial to the members of our Church has been greatly aggravated by this circumstance. It has happened in the providence of God that while this great question of doctrine has been forced on the notice of

Church.

the Church, other questions have also been forced on the attention of the Church, relating to other matters, and these other matters have been handled with far greater zeal and earnestness than those far greater questions which affected the whole foundation of our faith. That is one reason why I feel most thankful that the members of the Committee have done their work so admirably and so well. The conclusion to which they have come, when it reaches the ear of the Metropolitan of Capetown, will strengthen his hands and comfort his heart-namely, that he has the assurance of the Convocation of Canterbury that they believe he has acted most wisely, and that substantial justice has been done, and that we shall be prepared to support him in any future action he may take to give validity to the sentence that has been passed on Dr. Colenso.

The discussion was then adjourned.

The REGISTRAR-GENERAL read the schedule of prorogation, by which the House stood prorogued to the following day.

LOWER HOUSE.

The VEN. ARCHDEACON BICKERSTETH, D.D., Prolocutor, presided. Prayers having been said by the PROLOCUTOR, the minutes of the Session of the 28th of April last, and of the 19th ultimo, were read, and ordered to be reduced into Acts, according to the ancient practice of Convocation.

The PROLOCUTOR-I have been requested to state that the Archdeacon of Westminster is absent on account of domestic affliction; Archdeacon Jacob and Archdeacon Utterton in consequence of important official engagements elsewhere; Canon Hawkins from illness, and the Archdeacon of Worcester on account of a bereavement.

The PROLOCUTOR named as his Assessors for the present Session Archdeacon Hale, Archdeacon Denison, Chancellor Massingberd, Canon Blakesley, Dr. Leighton, Canon Woodgate, the Rev. J. W. Joyce, the Rev. W. B. Hopkins, and the Rev. M. Gibbs.

THE IRISH CHURCH.

DR. JEBB-I wish to give notice that to-morrow I shall move the suspension of the Standing Orders with a view of bringing forward the following resolution :

"It is the opinion of this House that the disseverance of the Irish portion of the United Church of England and Ireland from the State would be most injurious to the best interests, both civil and religious, of this nation; would be a breach of the solemn compact between Great Britain and Ireland made at the time of their legislative union, and the violation of a fundamental principle of our national polity which has immemorially recognised the Church as an integral part of the Constitution."

Divorce.

PETITIONS.

By REV. J. W. JOYCE, signed by the President, Vice-President, Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman and the members of the English Church Union, both Clergy and Laity, in favour of the reform of Convocation, and praying that licensed Priests, though unbeneficed, should be entitled to vote for Proctors for the Lower House.

By CANON SEYMOUR, signed by 1,300 of the Clergy of the province of Canterbury, praying this Convocation to frame a declaration accepting the deposition and excommunication of Dr. Colenso, Bishop of Natal.

The DEAN OF ELY, from the committee of an association formed for the purpose of improving the status of the assistant stipendiary curates and other unbeneficed Clergy of the Church of England, and called "The Curates' Association," praying this House to take into favourable consideration the petition, and that at the next general election of Proctors all Clergymen in Priest's orders, having the licence of the Bishop of the diocese, may be cited by the proper officers to such election, and their votes, whether personal or by polling-papers, be allowed and accepted at such election, so that they may appear by their Proctors in Convocation of the Province of Canterbury.

By REV. PREBENDARY TATHAM, signed by thirteen of the Clergy of the diocese of Exeter, upon the subject of the law of Dilapidations Ecclesiastical.

THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

The REV. M. GIBBS-I have to submit the following gravamen, which has already received some signatures, and may receive others. It sheweth

That in the last report of the Registrar-General for England and Wales twentythree divorced persons are stated to have been married in the year 1866.

That there is reason to fear that ecclesiastical officers have granted marriage licences to divorced persons; and that such grant is calculated not only to convey the idea that the Church of England sanctions the marriage of divorced persons, but also to add to the inducement, whereby persons are tempted to the Divorce Court with a view to re-marriage.

That the Act of Parliament 20 and 21 Vic., cap. 85, which sanctions the re-marriage of both the innocent and the guilty person after divorce, enacts that "all jurisdiction previously "exerciseable by any ecclesiastical court in England in matters matrimonial shall cease to be so exerciseable, except so far as relates to the granting of marriage licences, which may be granted as if this act had not passed."

That the language of Canon 101 appears to imply that a discretion may lawfully be used with regard to the persons to whom marriage licences are granted.

That Canon 107, while permitting divorce a thoro et mensa, forbids the parties so divorced, whether innocent or guilty, to contract matrimony during each other's life. That while the contracting of matrimony, even by the innocent party, during the life of the other, is, in the opinion of many persons, contrary to the teaching of the Word of God as well as of the Church, and ought, therefore, to be restrained, the undersigned believe that permission for the guilty party to proceed forthwith to contract a new marriage is a manifest scandal which calls urgently for immediate redress.

That, therefore, the undersigned present their earnest request to his Grace the President and their lordships the Bishops to take such action in the matter as in their wisdom they may see fit, and especially with a view to prevent the Church of England from appearing by such licences to sanction marriages which are contrary to the language of her services and to the teaching of Holy Scripture.

Fourteen of these re-marriages have taken place in the diocese I have the honour to represent, and therefore I thought it my duty to bring the matter before the House. I have to request the Prolocutor to take this up to his Grace as the gravamen of myself and of the other members who may sign it.

CHANCELLOR MASSINGBERD-I do not wish to raise a debate on the subject, but the gravamen seems to attract so much attention that I venture to propose that it be discussed with a view to its being sent to the Upper House as an articulus cleri.

CANON SELWYN-There is one point in which, as it appears to me,

Divorce.

the gravamen goes rather beyond the fact. Does it state that the guilty parties have married again? Because that is the whole point. The REV. M. GIBBS-The Registrar-General does not state whether the marriage takes place in the church, or before the registrar, but I have been told on good authority that Bishops' licences have been granted for the marriage of divorced persons.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I second the motion.

Put and carried.

CHANCELLOR MASSINGBERD-I now move that it be made an articulus cleri.

ARCHDEACON DENISON Seconded.

DR. WILLIAMS-Are we to have no opportunity of discussing the question? I confess I am taken by surprise.

The DEAN OF ELY-There is a somewhat substantial objection to the articulus being carried as it stands. It states that it is the unanimous opinion of this House, but the fact that two or three "Noes" were decidedly expressed shows that that is not the case.

DR. WILLIAMS-I am taken entirely by surprise, and therefore I shall express my sentiments upon the subject very imperfectly. On the ground of order, and that what we send up as an articulus cleri may have proper weight with the Upper House, I think that nothing ought to be sent up in that shape merely because there is a considerable leaning on the part of a majority of the House in favour of it. In this case, from what I have heard, there appears to be some confusion between two lines of conduct. It seems to be the opinion of a large number of members of this House that re-marriage, though_not desirable, is permissible on the part of the innocent party, where sentence of divorce has been pronounced on the ground of adultery,that the party against whom there is no charge is not to be debarred from the natural right of marriage. There is, I have observed, a very strong feeling in the House that, though the guilty party may be very properly punished by celibacy during the life of the innocent party, the innocent party cannot properly be punished with enforced celibacy during the life of the guilty party. I go further than that. My views were formed many years ago, under the influence of a divine whom all here will regard with reverence, the then Dean of Westminster, Dr. Ireland. He entered into the Scriptural question, and also I believe into it as one of Church government. The Scriptural question is as clear as anything can be. Our Lord's words, including the exception for the act of fornication, must override the more general expression of our Lord, which does not include that exception. The idea of the law of matrimony is what is expressed in the Church service, that it is to be a permanent act, and the service, of course, does not contemplate anything so dreadful as the dissolution of the contract by the criminal conduct of either of the parties. Our Lord's words seem to me clearly to convey to the injured party the right of re-marriage, for His words are, "He that marries a woman put away committeth adultery. He that putteth away his wife except for fornication causeth her to commit adultery." Dean Ireland

Divorce.S clearly shows that the innocent party at least has the right of re-marriage, and Ishould say that the State as the sovereign decider of contracts generally is the supreme authority in all such matters. Of course the State has no right to go against our Lord's words, any more than it has a right to sanction any breach of the laws of morality. The State has the right to sanction alterations in them to a certain extent, as in the case of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which is suspended by the Queen's order on what is considered by the governing power to be a sufficient justification. I think that in the case of the Seventh Commandment the State cannot sanction, any more than in the Sixth, any breach of natural morality, or of morality as laid down by the word of our Lord, but I still think that the power of the State, speaking through its laws and we accept the State law as overriding the Canon law-defines our legal position, and to that position, whatever discontent and dissatisfaction we may feel, we must submit. Therefore the decision of the State is what the people of this country may naturally acquiesce in, that decision not being contradicted either by natural morality or by the express words of Scripture, as in this case it is not. If this articulus cleri goes up, what will it do? It will leave the Church liable to celebrate a marriage of this kind. Supposing that a divorced party goes to the Surrogate, and the Surrogate tells him, "I have a discretion about granting a licence for your marriage, and I will not grant it;" he then goes to the registrar, gets his sanction, and the registrar's licence will authorise marriage in a church. ("No, no.") At any rate, the banns will sanction it, so that there is still a method by which a divorced party may be married in the church, if he likes. Surely, if there is a grievance-and I do not think there is-it is in the fact that the Church service is used, and the marriage is celebrated in the church. The Act of Parliament shows so much consideration for the Clergy, that it says if a Clergyman has a conscientious objection to celebrating the service, or any delicacy about it, another Clergyman may be employed for the purpose. We had the question discussed in this House, and it will be in the recollection of many members that we went over this very ground, and Archdeacon Denison said he should keep the key in his door and they should not get in. But to say that the Surrogate shall stop up one door by which the people can get into the church—that is, the licence of the Chancellor or Surrogate, while we leave the Church service available for those who do not care about it, is an unreasonableness I can hardly understand. I should not think it worth while

to care for the smaller thing while the greater is allowed to go on. I must vote against turning this gravamen into an articulus cleri, because it asks for the stoppage of a small inconsiderable adjunct of marriage while it allows the marriage itself to go on.

CHANCELLOR MASSINGBERD-May I ask Dr. Williams to explain whether I understood him correctly that his view of the case on the Scripture is that either the guilty or the innocent party is permitted to marry again?

DR. WILLIAMS-I do not think the Scripture decides the second question, because our Lord deals with it as a simple case of guilt for