Divorce.

which he assigns no remedy. I do not think His words involve perpetual celibacy for the guilty party any more than the innocent. The innocent party is the only one of whom He is speaking.

CHANCELLOR MASSINGBERD-I submit, then, that the gravamen exactly meets Dr. Williams's case, for it states 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;" and the next clause says "that while the contracting of matrimony, even by the innocent party, during the life of the other, is in the opinion of many persons -we say no more than that "contrary to the teaching of the Word of God as well as of the Church, and ought therefore to be restrained, the undersigned"— or, as it will now read, this House-"believes that permission for the guilty party to proceed forthwith to contract a new marriage is a manifest scandal which calls urgently for immediate redress." I do not see from Dr. Williams's statement that that is in any way opposed to his view. The object is to prevent licences for such marriages in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The DEAN OF WESTMINSTER-As a question of order, I wish to ask, are we entering upon a discussion on the whole question of divorce, which is a very wide one?

The PROLOCUTOR-The question is whether a certain gravamen, which has been presented by Mr. Gibbs, shall be converted into an articulus cleri, and as such sent up to the Upper House.

ARCHDEACON FREEMAN-I wish to state in a few words the reason why I could not assent to this gravamen going up as articulus cleri. I should be sorry if anything went forth from this House contrary to what I believe to be the fundamental principle of Scripture, which distinctly forbids the re-marriage of either party. The Epistle to the Romans says, "Know ye not that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law of her husband so long as he liveth. But if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband." The Apostle makes no exception. I am aware of the objection that one of the two passages in which our Lord forbids divorce appears to make exception in the case of a woman committing adultery. It is continually represented that where adultery has taken place re-marriage may be allowed, but our Lord has not said so. He says, "If fornication has taken place." The difference lies clearly in the interpretation of the Greek word Пopviɛa, as in the law of Moses several cases are admitted in which divorce may take place. It is said in Deuteronomy, "If a man take a wife and find any uncleanness in her "—that is, fornication before marriage— "he may put her away." That is Topviɛa, the evil act committed before marriage, and in contradiction to the word μoxía, which is the act of married persons. What our Lord is asked is, "Is it lawful for a man to put his wife away for every one of the acts alluded to by Moses?" and He says, "No, only for one." The Holy Scripture represents that marriage is as indissoluble as the union of the soul and body-a man cannot be divided from his wife or marry

Divorce. again while his wife is alive, any more than he can die twice; and I trust that those who have fully considered the matter will not put their hands to any document which recognises so unscriptural and unlawful a dogma. If fornication has been committed, it is no marriage at all, because one of the parties was not in a condition to marry; but where a true and lawful marriage has taken place, the parties are bound together indissolubly.

ARCHDEACON KAYE-I have no wish to prolong this debate, but I feel it to be a matter of regret that we should be placed in the position of even seeming to say "Yes" or "No" definitely to such a very important question, which we have not had the opportunity beforehand of carefully considering or discussing. I trust that Chancellor Massingberd will, on reconsideration, see the propriety of not pressing his resolution.

CANON SELWYN-I heartily second the suggestion which has been made by the ven. Archdeacon. I have taken great part in the discussion of this subject, but I do not think this is an occasion on which we are called upon to go into the whole question of marriage and divorce. The House will remember that three times we have sent to the Upper House articuli asking for such an alteration of the law passed some years ago, which allows the guilty parties to marry again, and permits the use of the church even if the Clergyman himself should object, with the ancient forms and ceremonies of the Church, as if the parties had never been married before, and what we asked their lordships was, to concur in the Reformanda in Parliamento for the amendment of that law. We might very well ask them, therefore, to use the discretion which is in their hands in the granting of licences so as not to contravene the amendment of the law we have asked them to make. There are, no doubt, difficulties in the case as regards dealing with the innocent parties, but the registrar does not state whether the parties so re-married were the innocent or the guilty, and the assumption must be that some of them were the guilty. I think the document should be presented to the Upper House not as an articulus cleri, but as the gravamen of those who sign it.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-Having, as the seconder of Chancellor Massingberd's motion, been applied to for my consent to its withdrawal, I am obliged to say that I cannot give it. I was ready to sign the gravamen, not that I am one of those who think that marriage can take place under any circumstances between divorced parties-for I entirely agree with what has been stated by the Archdeacon of Exeter (Freeman)-but because I thought that the gravamen entirely covered both cases; that is, that of those who hold that re-marriage cannot take place by either of the divorced parties, and that of those who contend that re-marriage by the innocent party is permissible, and at the same time enabled the House to express an opinion upon one of the most grievous scandals that ever fell upon the Church of England, that the Archbishops and Bishops should be concerned, from day to day, in granting licences sanctioning such marriages, and stamping them as it were with the authority of the Church. As to the stock argument

Divorce,

which is continually brought forward in this House when we debate questions concerning the Church, that "this is done in a hurry," is there any member of the Church-Clergyman or Layman-who has not considered the divorce question, and, if there is, has he any right to be a member of this House? It is absurd to say in any assembly of educated Englishmen that the question has not been considered. Is it likely that anything that can possibly be said would alter any man's opinion? I know it will not alter mine. The question has been debated over and over again, and to put it off on the ground suggested would stultify the House. Neither can I consent to the withdrawal of the motion because we cannot send it up unanimously. We cannot hope to send up anything unanimously. We have here a document which combines, as I think, the opinions of both sides. I never supposed there would be any opposition, or I might have said it would have been better not to move it as an articulus cleri; but, it having been so moved, I must call for a division.

ARCHDEACON MOORE-I was going to do what appears now to be in vain-viz., to join my supplication to that of Canon Selwyn to Chancellor Massingberd to withdraw his motion. I have very few words to say upon the subject. It is clearly impossible to enter here into a critical question as to the meaning of a Greek word, but I would put it to Archdeacon Freeman and to the House whether we can believe that our Lord could have meant by the words in St. Mark to permit divorce a vinculo matrimonii on account of fornication committed before marriage, and yet did not intend to include fornication or adultery committed after marriage? Upon the common-sense view the whole question is as plain and simple from the text as anything ever was. We have nothing to do with divorce a mensa et thoro, it is a vinculo matrimonii. Our Lord was asked not with reference to divorce a mensa et thoro, but a vinculo matrimonii, and He says the vinculo matrimonii is broken by fornication, and I believe, therefore, divorced people under such circumstances are as free from the vinculo matrimonii as if they had never been married. It is a different question whether there ought not to be some Church discipline as to the guilty person-whether he or she should not be separated for a time, and should not be required to give certain proofs of repentance before being allowed to marry again. That I quite agree with, but I hold that the vinculo matrimonii is broken when the adultery is committed, and both are free to marry again. The Church has the right to say that the guilty persons shall show signs of repentance before they re-marry, and I am sorry the State ever sanctioned divorced persons coming to the Church to be married with the Church ceremony. I think that the marriage should be before the registrar, but I protest against any declaration going from this House that there is no such thing as divorce. I cannot understand how the Archdeacon can quote a proposition like that of St. Paul and suppose there can be no exception: if there had been that exception, St. Paul would clearly have taken no notice of it; he would have given the general case, as men constantly do, though there were many exceptions. I should be eorry that this House should be committed to an opinion upon the

Divorce.S question when such an act has been committed as our Lord seems to acknowledge divorce to be lawful for.

The REV. M. GIBBS-I wish to observe that in the debate that has taken place there has been no allusion to the request we make to the Upper House. The gravamen is a statement of facts and opinions. It states the fact that twenty-three divorced persons were re-married in the year 1866. It then states that the law which allowed them to re-marry particularly guarded the case of marriage licences by saying that "they shall continue to be granted as if this Act had not passed." Therefore whatever powers the Bishops had before the Act over licences they have still. The gravamen then states that a discretion appears to be allowed in the granting of licences by the 101st Canon, and it adds that the 107th Canon shows the mind of the Churchthat when the Ecclesiastical Court used to grant a sentence of divorce, bond was always taken that neither party should re-marry in the lifetime of the other. Then it proceeds to give the only opinions expressed in the document-that while many persons hold the opinion that the innocent parties ought not to be allowed to re-marry, those who adopt the gravamen think that the guilty party ought not to be allowed to re-marry. These are the two opinions we state, and then what is the prayer? It is merely to ask his Grace the President and their lordships the Bishops of the Upper House to take such action as in their wisdom they see fit, with a view to prevent the Church of England from appearing by the granting of licences to sanction marriages which are contrary to the language of our services and to the teaching of Holy Scripture. We leave their lordships to say what marriages are so contrary, and we ask them to take care that, if there are such marriages, they may not have the sanction of the Church implied by being solemnised under the authority of marriage licences. Queen Anne and George I. both, I believe, sent messages to Convocation to make such canons or regulations or declarations with regard to the granting of marriage licences as might prevent clandestine marriages; and those sovereigns seemed to look to Convocation as the proper authority to give a declaration upon the point. Therefore I thought we might venture to ask their lordships so to regulate the issue of licences as to prevent those marriages being solemnised in church which are contrary to Holy Scripture, leaving their lordships to say what those marriages are. Even the Act of Parliament allows the minister to refuse to marry such persons; but is it not a very painful thing for him, when he refuses, to be told, "I present you with the licence from your own Bishop"?

The REV. F. VINCENT-I will studiously avoid going into the merits of the question. I simply wish to say that it does not seem to me that the House is in a position fairly to discuss such a subject; and I can go further and say that it is scarcely consistent with the dignity of this House that an articulus cleri should be sent up in this haphazard way, coming before us unexpectedly, and in the midst of other business. Therefore I intend to move as an amendment that the House proceed to the order of the day. If we went into the merits of the question, my opinions would probably not be very

Divorce.

different from those of the member who brought forward the gravamen, but I submit that we have neither time nor is the occasion fitting to enter at once into a discussion of a proposition which not only upon its merits and in its substance, but in its wording, is calculated to elicit controversy. I should be content if the mover and seconder would agree to have the gravamen printed, with a view to its being taken into consideration to-morrow or some other day.

The PROLOCUTOR-According to the rules and orders of this House, this is at the present moment the order of the day.

The REV. F. VINCENT-Then I move the previous question. Lord A. COMPTON-As regards the argument that the Пovica being the lesser crime must include the Μοιχεία. At the time our Lord spoke adultery was a capital crime, and would immediately on detection have been punished with death; therefore the question put to our Lord could not have reference merely to putting away. The gravamen quotes the Act of Parliament, which says that all the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court in such matters is taken away, except the power of granting licences. Before the Act was passed, the ecclesiastical courts could not grant licences in such cases, and it is therefore very doubtful whether such licences have any validity whatever.

ARCHDEACON SIR G. PREVOST-I hold as strong an opinion as the Archdeacon of Exeter that marriage once contracted is indissoluble. In regard to the interpretation of the passage from St. Mark, the general principle for interpreting doubtful passages is their agreement with other passages and with the context. But in this instance there is another circumstance which has not been mentioned, but which helps us to the correct meaning-viz., that after the question had been put by the Jews and answered by our Lord in the words quoted, His disciples went to Him privately and asked him on the same matter, and then He gave them the commandment without any exception. I wish further to say, in answer to Dr. Williams, that it is one thing for people to come to us with the registrar's licence, but it is another for them to come with the licence of the Archbishop.

CANON WOODGATE-We are wasting a great deal of time in opening the general question of divorce now. It would save trouble if Mr. Gibbs would state to the House what he stated to me privately just I asked him whether a person who signed the gravamen, or voted for the articulus, would be considered as pledging himself against the re-marriage of the innocent party, and he replied "No." If he would say the same to the House, we might, I think, come to a vote at once.

now.

The REV. J. E. KEMPE-I think the language of the gravamen is ambiguous. Does it mean merely that many persons think that the contracting of matrimony even by the innocent party should be restrained, or that this House thinks it should, because many persons are of that opinion?

The motion adopting the gravamen as an articulus cleri of the House was put and carried.