ST. JAMES'S HALL MEETING AND MR. MORLEY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR-1
Sin,—In your last number you have fallen into an error in sup- posing that I was present, and "quite out of my element," at the meeting at St. James's Hall to protest against the Lords throwing out the Bill for legalizing marriage with deceased wife's sister. The fact is that I promised Mr. Chambers to assist him in a meeting protesting against the Lords, as I think so unwisely, pre- venting the passing of a measure which a regard for the morality of the country renders highly expedient. When the notice ap- peared, which was not at all in accordance with my expectation and taste, I wrote to Mr. Chambers stating that I considered the of the Bishops in Parliament quite irrelevant, for the- majority was considerable without reckoning the Spiritual Peers,. and I preferred therefore not to attend. A daily paper has rather• vehemently commented on my absence, and implied that I and others were guilty of cowardice in not patting in an appearance ; but when the character of the meeting was changed from the• form we expected, I think we were justified in staying away. It is much to be regretted that the meeting was so turbulent, for I am afraid that its protest will not help the passing of the- Bill, and I should rejoice if the stigma which the law now affixes to the birth or marriage of many highly honourable persons could be at once removed. I do not believe in sins which are made only by Parliament, and are now maintained only by the House of Lords. The fewer of these sins the better for the nation. Can you help us with some more effectual core for them than "indig- nation " and a "sermon"? My " two moderate sentences," which were so unsuccessful, were wholly imaginary.—I am, Sir, &c., S. MORLEY.
[We regret our blunder as to Mr. Morley. As to the main point we have always steadily supported the Bill so unwisely thrown out by the Lords.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
