SIR,—Pharos's rudeness is immaterial; but his at- tempt to misrepresent
to your readers the purport of my letter in last week's Spectator seems matter enough to warrant my asking the kindness of a little more space to make clear what your com- mentator would confuse.
My statement that marriage after divorce has been the law and practice of the Church of England since the Reformation does not rely on the cases of divorce confirmed by Act of Parliament prior to 1857 (during the House of Lords debate on the Herbert Act of 1937 the number of such Acts was given as 450). I specifically pointed out that, accord-
ing to the Rev. R. Haw's The State of Matrimony (SPCK, page 93), second marriages after divorce in the Church courts, and whilst the separated spouses both lived, 'were fairly common.' I could have ad- duced further evidence to the same effect, of course, but for my concern for your space.—Yours faith- fully,
Kirton Rectory, Ipswich, Suffolk
W. J. S. WEIR
[Pharos writes: 'Whatever exception or exceptions Mr. Weir is relying on, he is surely taking rather too literally the adage that the exception proves the rule.'—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
