LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 52, 25 November 1907, Page 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PRESBYTERIANS AND THE MARRIAGE

Sir,—ln a home paper just to hand I notice the following:—"lii 6 Deceased Wife's(.Sister Act is likely, to occasion no small difficulty among J/resuyteriaus. The Westminster Goiilessiou absolutely bans suen marriages,' and it will be hard tor tue Church of Scotland and the linited Free Church alike to countenance what their doctrinal, standard emphatically condemns. Many Presbyterian ministers privately repudiate the 'Confession , on-.thia pome, Hut it wouid be- extremely <linicult:ior iiUem to avow publicly their intention w perform the marriage ceremony at such unions without a definite alteration of their. vJiiurcn law. At a meeting or me lJresbytery of Glasgow the other day the questioa icas discusseu, and i'roiessor Cooper pointed out that the Established Church of Scotland had received no formal relief from the Act, becaiisq none was required—there'being noooligation on the part of ministers to periorin tlie marriage ceremony at unions pronounced unlawful by their Church. He held that it was out of order to discuss the jjuestion, since it. was explicitly settled by their constitution. A committee was afterwards ap< pointed to consider the matter, .and a-simi-lar course has been adopted at other presbytery meetings." "' ■ - Now, Sir, as this Act has been in force in Now Zealand tor some time, what action have our Presbyterian friends taken in this matter, as most of the Presbyterian Churches, Own allegiance to the Church of Scotland? Hare they taken her for their guide, Or acted on their owii judgment? Quite recently we had the General Absembly of the Presbyterian Church in New Zealand sitting here in. Wellington. There was no discussion of the Act, as tar as 1 could see by the reports appearing in the daily papers. Perhaps some of your correspondents could give us some light on this: how it is viewed by the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, or what action waa taken whon the Act was passed in thiq country?—! am, etc., SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL. Wellington, November 22. ......

PUBLIC PETITIIONS TO PARLIAMENT.

Sir,—On .Tuesday last Mr. Hogg, speaking in the House, said: "The petitioner, in addition .to his original grievance, may now feel that he has a grievance against the House. Most petitioners do." The remark did not refer to my case, but fits it all the same. With a view to giving the public just a fbint idea of the hollowness of portion of those inquiries, 1 append the following:—' ' ■"'• '■' "To the Members in Parliament assembled. —Petition of A.B. Humbly showeth, tbaj your petitioner was . . . . That ho did 1 not—wherefore, and will over pray."* 'Clerk rounds up quorum of four in two hours (record) who sit round a la smoke concert. Clerk reads petition; also Government report, in part—any part, enough being toe much. "Has petitioner anything ho would like to say?"—"Ves; lots." "Kefernng to Government report. Dr. ' 'Aro you a doctorP" "No- "Can't tako your remarks on that point." "Government report says . " "Did that come out in Court?" •'Yes " "Can't take that. We aro not a Court of Appeal." "What, is my position? What can 1 refer to?" "Oh, go on, and wo will stop you if you are wrong." Petitioner discoVers that he is wrong every time h? opens his mouth, and exclaims: "What rights have 1?" "W° llave . S' Ten J° u a patioiit hearing, and all the time we-have to spare. Flense retire and allow us,to frame our ro» solution." Result: No recommendation to make. Mr. ■ , member "or Oat-a-wheat (sexton-butt to obnoxious petitions) had pre* decreed it. The above is a skeloton sketch of. a"pubho petition to Parliament—pretty ompty, -but not ono whit more hollow than is apparently the case with the major portion of tho Parliamentary business which came under the Insh at Mr. Hogg's hands last Tuesday.—l am, etc., HENRY BODLEY.. November 21. . . .