ATTITUDE TO CHURCH

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 313, 5 December 1936, Page 9

ATTITUDE TO CHURCH

BISHOP’S EXPLANATION. DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE. “MOCKERY OF THE OATH.” Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Dec. 4. An explanation of the attitude of the Anglican Church toward Kiny Edward’s proposed marriage to Mrs Simpson was given by the liishop ot Wellington (lit. Rev. H. St. Barbc Holland) in an interview to-nignt. "The position of the Church is that an innocent party ot a divorce may claim under the civil law to be married in an Anglican Church, if the party can secure a clergyman willing to perform the ceremony, ' said Bisnop Holland, "but an interesting fact is that no clergyman can be compelled by law to do it. Very tew —only one or two here and there—are willing to marry divorced persons. They leel that the Church must stand tor the highest moral standards ot marriage. In the case of very great hardship the practice is tor the clergy to advise the parties concerned to nave the marriage performed at a register office, and then if they wish to come to the Church for its blessing in the marriage service ot the Church, both the bride and bridegroom take a vow ‘to live as man and wife until death us do part.’

“If the Church condoned the marriage of divorced persons, it would make a mockery ot the oath of life partnership until death intervened. When the Church has set such a high standard of marriages in the first instance, it would stultify the marriage oath in marrying divorced persons. The vow does not say, ‘until death or adultery doth us part.’ “In view of the Church’s attitude,” continued Bishop Holland, “it is highly unlikely that the King could get an Anglican clergyman to marry him and Mrs Simpson.” Referring generally to what he believed must be the view of the majority of the King’6 subjects towards his relations with Mrs Sjmpson, Bishop Holland said that, since the enactment of the Statute of Westminister in 1931, the Crown was the only link that tied the Empire together, in view of that fact, it was a matter of increasing concern to all of the constituent parts ol the British Comonwealth of Nations that the wearer of the Crown should represent all that was highest and noblest in what had been handed down through history as the ideal of life, both public and private. The King had, therefore, a responsibility which must win for him the sympathy of all his subjects and make the most of them ask, “Who would be King?” The wearer of the Crown must be willing to sacrifice his own private desires for the sake of the responsible position with which he was entrusted.

It was clear that the great majority of the subjects of the Throne would agree with the Church’s outlook that a great ideal had been lost were such an event as the suggested marriage of the King to take place. Greatly as they would deplore the passing from the Throne of one who had won the hearts of the people by his wonderful sympathy with the under-dog and the oppressed, and tl-oiigh none would wish to dictate to him, they must express and adhere to the conviction that His Majesty would do grievous wrong to the heritage handed down to him wore he to fulfil the desire attributed to him of faking as his partner one who had been twice divorced.

WITHOUT PRECEDENT. PROVISIONS OF LAW. Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, Doc. 4. “There is no precedent since the Act of Settlement was passed for a case like the present,” stated Mr John Lang, lecturer in constitutional law and a leading authority. He added that erroneous ideas were commonly held on the freedom of the King to marry, probably due to the Royal Marriages Act, which, however, only' empowered the King to exercise some controi over other people’s marriages. Ihe only restriction on the King’s freedom was imposed by Section ‘2 of the Act of Settlement, 1701. Briefly, Sir Lang said, the King must not marry a Roman Catholic, but might marry any woman, British or foreign, gentle or simple, Jewess or Quakeress. “It is perfectly true that Parliament may regulate the succession to the Throne,” said Mr Lang, “hut to do so legally would require the King’s consent, and I can hardly imagine anyone would be likely to undertake the strenuous duties of kingship, at the same time consenting to the exclusion of his own issue from succession, and for Parliament to alter succession without the King’s consent would he simply an act of revolution tantamount to deposing the King. ' “In my opinion, though Cabinet may properly express their views to the Sovereign, they have no more right to treat this as a matter on which the King must follow his Ministers’ advice than they have to prescribe what he would have for breakfast.” GOVERNOR’S RECALL. CABINET TO MEET. WELLINGTON, Dec. 4. “It docs not appear to be any secret now that the crisis is over that the King’s prospective choice of an American consort was the reason for the sudden recall of the Governor-General (Viscount Galway) from the South Island this week,” the Prime Minister (Rt Hon. M. J. Savage) stated to-day. “In all probability, the urgent message to His Excellency came direct from the British authorities.” There is to be a fully-attended meeting of Cabinet on Monday, but whether or° not the constitutional crisis will be discussed has not been disclosed.