HL Deb 08 August 1867 vol 189 cc1094-9

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1 (Irregularity in Time of publishing Banns not to affect Marriages already solemnized).

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

said, he had presented Petitions from several of the clergy of his diocese against this measure. This clause contained an interpretation of the Act which was recited in the Preamble of the Bill, and which enacted— That all Banns of Marriage shall be published upon Three Sundays preceding the Solemnization of Marriage, during the Time of Morning Service, or Evening Service (if there be no Morning Service), immediately after the Second Lesson. Now the question was, whether "immediately after the Second Lesson" applied to the Morning Service or only to the Evening Service? It might be said that this was a small question, and asked why it should disturb the minds of clergymen? But it was not a small matter, for, as the Petitioners urged, clergymen were bound by solemn vows to adhere to the Book of Common Prayer, as appended to the Act of Uniformity. It might be asked whether this Bill was not putting an interpretation on the Act of 1753, which was never intended? In the Book of Common Prayer appended to the Act of 1662, the order was that banns should be published after the Nicene Creed. It was true that in some of the Books of Common Prayer the order was "after the Second Lesson;" but that change was made without any authority whatever. The opinion of high authorities—such as the late Mr. Baron Alderson—was that the construction now proposed to be put upon the Act was not the real intention and meaning. The matter was so important that a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had delivered a charge to his clergy recommending them to read the banns after the Nicene Creed; but if this Bill were passed as it stood all banns would have to be published after the Second Lesson at both the Morning and the Evening Service. He asked whether it was not fair that the opinion of Convocation should be taken before they legislated on that subject; and he appealed to their Lordships, in the crisis through which the Church was now passing, not to adopt a clause which by a kind of sidewind disposed of a rubric in the Book of Common Prayer. Another reason why they should pause in that matter was that the subject of the rubric must come under the consideration of the Commission recently issued; and, indeed, he thought it would be better to refer the whole question of banns, and not their mere publication, either to the Marriage Commission or to the other Royal Commission to which he had just alluded. He hoped therefore that the clause would be rejected, and the whole subject of the publication of banns, together with the present Bill, referred either to the Marriage or the Rubric Commissions.

Moved, to leave out Clause 1.—(The Lord Bishop of Gloucester and, Bristol.)

LORD CRANWORTH

said, now that attention had been called to the subject, and a doubt had been stated to exist with regard to it, it was desirable that the matter should be cleared up, and that any difficulty caused by the rubric being somewhat inconsistent with itself should be removed. The most convenient time for publishing the banns was that which had always been used. For himself, he had never heard them published at any other time than after the Second Lesson in the Morning Service, and in ninety-nine cases out of 100 that was the practice. It was said that the Act would be an alteration of the rubric without the consent of Convocation. But the publication of the banns after the Second Lesson at the Evening Service was already the law. A clergyman could not publish the Banns during Evening Service unless there was no Morning Service, and the Act of Parliament directed that on such occasions they should be published after the Second Lesson at Evening Service. The consent of Convocation was not obtained for that Act, and it was an interference with Convocation quite as great as that now proposed. He could not agree to the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. If the clause were omitted the existing doubts would remain—indeed, he thought the Bill was such obvious common sense that he should have hoped it would pass unanimously.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth) was entirely mistaken in supposing that the practice of publishing the banns after the Second Lesson was all but universal. The practice, on the contrary, was most divided. He had received letters from clergymen in almost every diocese, and they stated that in some parishes there had never been a change from the rubrical time of the publication of the banns of matrimony. The noble and learned Lord stated that the change made by the Act of Parliament in declaring that the banns should be published after the Second Lesson of Evening Service when there was no Morning Service was equally a violation of the rubric with that proposed by the present Bill. Again, he was mistaken. There was nothing in the rubric about the publication of banns during the Evening Service, and it was consequently impossible to violate that which did not exist. But if their Lordships passed this Bill, they would violate the rubric. He thought their Lordships might legalize past marriages, and then wait until the two Royal Commissions now sitting had reported, when Parliament could legislate in a formal manner, and with full knowledge on the subject. If the Royal Commission now inquiring into the Marriage Law, for example, should recommend that the publication of banns should be done away with, it would be most unwise for Parliament to do that in the meantime, which would shock the feelings of a great many clergymen througout the country. He held in his hand a letter from an Archdeacon, not living in his own diocese, who said it would be a great trial to several good and very moderate men to be thus forced into disobedience to a Church order, even in a mixed matter like the present. Another clergyman wrote to express his conviction that if this Bill passed it would add very largely to the dissatisfaction of many of the most devoted ot the clergy. Another clergyman, also of another diocese, deprecated most earnestly the alteration of the rubric, stating that the rubric had never been disobeyed in Ireland, that the Bill would call upon him to violate his most sacred engagements, and that if it became law, he should discharge his conscience in that behalf. It was needless, by a hasty piece of legislation, to forestal the Report of the Royal Commission. It was said that unless the practice were made universal there was danger lest a person interested might miss the publication of the banns. During an experience of forty years, he had never known such an instance. It was a mistake to suppose that a person forbidding the banns might lawfully interrupt a clergyman when the banns were read out. If any person did so, he was liable to be proceeded against for brawling in church. The meaning of the words "Ye are to declare it" was that the person desiring to forbid the banns was to go to the clergyman who kept the book, and raise his objection there. The book containing the banns was accessible to every one, and the practice was for a person wishing to forbid the banns to go and see the banns book, and tell the clergyman having the charge of it his objection to the marriage. To pass this Bill was to offend the consciences of men who had solemnly promised to obey the rubric, when no object was to be attained by it. It was most important at the present juncture that they should not needlessly shock the feelings of the considerable number of clergyman who objected to this Bill.

LORD HOUGHTON

said, that what he asked their Lordships to do was to confirm by law the all but universal practice for upwards of 100 years. Since the time of the passing of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753, the publication of banns after the Second Lesson had been universal, or nearly so. What was the rubric which was on their Lordships' table, and which every clergyman had upon his desk? The clergyman who said it would be a grievance not to publish the banns after the Nicene Creed had upon his desk a rubric which commanded him to publish them after the Second Lesson. But they were told that that rubric had not been confirmed by Convocation. Here, then, came in a grave question of conflict between the law of the land and the law of the Church, in which the latter must give way. The words of the Act of Parliament were, that All other rules prescribed by the said rubric concerning the publication of banns and solemnization of matrimony, and not hereby altered, shall be duly observed. Now, the supporters of this Bill maintained that an alteration which he believed to be a convenient and a wise alteration had been established, and he called upon their Lordships to confirm it. This Bill had been brought forward at the present moment because certain persons in the Church had raised an agitation upon the question. That was a very serious thing, and meant this, if it meant anything, that there was a large body of clergy who were desirous of taking the rubric in a different sense from that which the Act of Parliament declared, and who almost clandestinely affirmed that there was a law of the Church different from the law of the land. That was a principle which he deemed to be a very serious one, and he could not for a moment assent to it.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that though the precise time of reading the banns of marriage in church was, in his opinion, of no great importance, nevertheless the question was one which involved an important principle, and might give rise to very serious discussions. The two Amendments of the right rev. Prelates (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol and the Bishop of Oxford) must be taken in connection with each other in considering this question. He was somewhat surprised to hear that there was such a great difference of opinion with regard to the proper time of the publication of the banns as that mentioned by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), because he could say that, during a long life, and though he had attended regularly at the Church services, he had never heard the banns published after the Nicene Creed. The two right rev. Prelates, however, who had spoken had assured the House that there were a number of clergymen, in various dioceses, who considered themselves bound in conscience to take a different interpretation of the rubric from the usual one. If there were any doubt on the subject, there ought to be no doubt whatever with regard to the validity of the marriages previously solemnized, or those which might be hereafter solemnized, until the question was finally set at rest. It seemed to him, under the circumstances, that the course advocated by the right rev. Prelate who had last spoken was the one which would recommend itself to the deliberate judgment of their Lordships. They had referred these two special questions—the one, the question of marriage, to a Commission upon Marriage, and the other, the question of certain rubrics—to a Commission specially appointed to consider those rubrics, and more especially the rubrics relating to the publication of the banns of marriage, and it appeared to him that their Lordships would stultify themselves if, previous to the Report of the Commission, they were to decide on the authority of Parliament alone in favour of that which he himself believed to be the general rule. In the meantime the Amendment to be proposed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), would remove all doubt as to the validity of marriage at whatever time it might be celebrated, and would also provide against any objections being raised to it until Parliament, in its wisdom, should legislate further on the subject. If the question went to a division, he should be disposed to vote in favour of the omission of the clause.

LORD HOUGHTON

said, he thought it his duty to divide upon the clause. With every respect for the opinion of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government he would rather defer to that which had been expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night.

On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided: — Contents 8; Not-Contents 10: Majority 32.

Clause 2 (Indemnity to Clergymen).

LORD HOUGHTON

moved, That the Lord in the Chair do leave the Chair.

THE EARL OF DERBY

hoped that the noble Lord would not persevere with the Motion. Having raised a doubt on a most important point, he ought not to abandon a Bill which proposed to settle that doubt.

On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

Amendments made: the Report thereof to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 311.)

House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.