HC Deb 25 March 1825 vol 12 cc1236-45
Mr. W. Smith

said, he should not feel it necessary to enter at length upon the subject of the bill of which he now proposed the second reading. The parties, on whose behalf he submitted that motion, were the Unitarian Dissenters of this country, who entertained no objection to the prevailing form of marriage in the established church, other than that which regarded the introduction of language, that expressed certain sentiments to which they could not conscientiously agree. All they asked was, to be relieved from the necessity of repeating a certain form of language which invoked the names of the Trinity. He conceived that he was justified in expecting that the second reading of this bill would not be objected to. It had been the anxious desire of himself, and of those who were connected with him, so to frame this bill, as to avoid injuring the feelings of any other class of his majesty's subjects. The bill was almost, in all respects, the same which, being introduced by him about three years ago into that House, had received so respectable a sanction. The Unitarians were only desirous of satisfying their own scruples. He might add, that the bill for the better prevention of clandestine marriages, passed in the reign of Geo. II, was not passed, as had been erroneously supposed, on any religious grounds, but simply with the view of preventing such marriages.

Mr. Robertson

expressed himself strongly opposed to the measure. He thought that the church of England was essential to the safety of the throne of England. Pull down the one, and the other could not stand. The safety of such establishments ought not to be endangered, in order to satisfy the scruples of a small minority of dissentients from the established church. If parliament gave this sort of relief to one set of men, they must to another: and similar dispensations must be conceded to every class of Dissenters in the kingdom. The hon. gentleman, after expressing his wish to see the supremacy in religious affairs in the Protestant established church, entered into a short historical review of the mischievous effects that had, at different times, ensued to states, in his opinion, from connexions of Presbyterians, Puritans, and Unitarians. To the Unitarians, however, he must deny the title they so absurdly assumed, of "Christians"—dissenting Christians. They might be much more properly denominated Mahometans, whom they much more nearly resembled. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to draw the attention of the House to the conduct of the Puritans in the time of Charles I. Their authority commenced with small beginnings; but, in a short time, they became a most formidable body. Buckingham thought it necessary to court their power; but they soon became the masters of Buckingham, and the arbiters of the fate of their sovereign. They got the reins of government into their own hands; and, what the consequences were, every person conversant with the history of the country must know perfectly well. Therefore, he contended, that Parliament ought to watch narrowly what they granted to the parties now before them, lest they should be induced to take too much upon themselves. He admitted that those prin- ciples of Puritanism did not now appear in so strong and decided a point of view as they had done at the period to which he had adverted. They appeared, at present, to be softened down and moderated. But the House ought never to lose sight of the fact, that it was Puritanism which induced the Scotch to sell their king, and which led the English afterwards to butcher him. From a firm conviction, that great mischief would arise, if the concession called for were granted to those by whom it was demanded, he would oppose the bill.

Dr. Lushington

said, there was one assertion of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in which he was perfectly prepared to concur. The hon. gentleman had said, that he was not allied to the church of England; and in that fact he implicitly believed. The church of England, though much misrepresented by its enemies, never attempted to prevent those whose religious opinions were of a different description, from a full and free exercise of the tenets in which they had been educated. In the present instance, the relief which the dissenters sought for, was not attempted to be violently wrested from the church of England, but was called for as a concession which should, in justice, be received at her hands. The arguments which were adduced against this bill appeared to him to be most untenable. The discussion which had taken place in that and in the other House, proved the fact. What said the Unitarian dissenters? They declared, that they could not agree with the marriage ceremony, as solemnized in the church of England, because it militated against their ideas of religious freedom; because it was at variance with their religious sentiments. What had some of the most respected prelates of the established church said on this subject? The bishops of London, Llandaff, and Exeter, had said, "We will not take on ourselves to judge whether your scruples are well or ill-founded — we will not go into the examination of the marriage service—we will not go into the grounds on which your opinion is founded. It would be useless for us to proceed with such an examination, because we know that, in all matters of religious belief, the conscience of the individual must alone be looked to, by that conscientious feeling alone can he decide, whether this or that system is the best calculated to reconcile him to the God whom he worships." Such a feeling, such a principle as this, had nothing whatever to do with matters of trade and commerce, which the hon. gentleman had so strangely mixed up with the question under consideration. He had no desire to detain the House, but he could not avoid reading the opinions given by three of the Archbishops, and several of the bishops of Ireland, in 1782, when a bill was brought in for the purpose of allowing dissenters to be married by ministers of their own persuasion. They dissented from that bill, with reference to some of its points; but, with respect to its principles, they entirely concurred, "We are," they said, "willing to pass a bill rendering all marriage contracts or marriages hereafter to be entered into between Protestant Dissenters, and solemnized by Protestant Dissenting ministers, or persons approved of by the congregation, as good and valid, to all intents and purposes, as marriages would be if performed by ministers of the established church;" and then they stated the grounds of objection which they had to some of the clauses in this particular bill. Now, it should be observed, that this qualified protest, in which the principle was admitted, though some of the details of the measure were objected to, was drawn up by individuals who held the highest situations in the established church. Those reverend prelates felt it to be no degradation to the established church; they thought it in no way militated against the principles on which that church was founded, to make large allowances in a matter of such great importance. They felt that the right of marriage was intimately connected with the principle of toleration itself: they felt, that, without the admission of that right, according to the conscientious scruples of individuals, the principle of toleration could not exist; and therefore they were willing to go a great way, for the purpose of meeting the feelings of the dissenters. This was a right very different from that of sitting in parliament; very different from various civil rights, to the attainment of which certain forms were by law necessary. The right of marriage was a natural right. Individuals ought to be allowed to enter into the state of marriage, in that way which best accorded with their sense of moral and religious feeling. If that privilege were denied to them, then religious toleration was withheld from them. Then came the question, whether the plan now proposed was not the best mode of admit- ting that right, without infringing on the rights of the established church? As the business at present stood, there were but two ways in which the marriage of dissenters could be performed, without wounding their religious scruples. The one was, to alter the liturgy of the church of England; the other, to suffer the dissenters to be married by their own pastors. The first course would, he was sure, be at variance with the feelings of the clergy of the established church; and certainly, in his opinion, their feelings ought to be attended to. If a measure appeared to militate against their feelings, or to be opposed to their rights, it would be inconsistent with good policy, and with justice, to press it forward. But, even if the liturgy were altered, new sects of dissenters might arise; new regulations might be called for; and it would be beyond the power of human wisdom to propose any form of marriage, to meet all the diversities of religious opinion. Some bodies of dissenters were adverse to the solemnization of the marriage ceremony by any clergyman at all; and therefore it was clear, that no alteration in the liturgy would produce an unanimity of feeling. This was a most important subject, and one to which he had paid much attention. Long after the establishment of Christianity, marriage was not considered a religious rite. It became a religious rite, under the pontificate of Pope Innocent; but, even in places on the continent where marriage was held to be a sacrament, it was not deemed necessary that marriage should be celebrated in a church at all. Nor was it the case here, until lord Hardwicke's act, which was passed for the protection of property. By taking the course pointed out by this bill, the dissenters, on the one hand, would not be compelled to violate their religious scruples; and, on the other, interests of the Church would not be invaded. By allowing marriages to be solemnized in the way proposed, all bickering, would be put an end to. But, he would ask, could it strengthen the interests of piety—could it render religious feelings more ardent; could it add to the interests of morality, to bring individuals before the altar, for the purpose of performing an important duty, when they did not believe in certain tenets held by that church? Why should any human being be called on to state, with his mouth, his belief of that which he abhorred in his heart? He thought nothing could be more disgrace- ful than the scenes which had taken place at the marriages of Unitarians, when protests were tendered to the officiating clergyman. Nothing, in his mind, could be more injurious to the Church than the performance of the marriage ceremony, coupled with the presentation of a protest against the forms to which the protesting parties were obliged to submit. Could any thing be more repugnant to feeling, than one of those scenes, where the clergyman was told to his face, "We are compelled to come here. Unless we are guilty of a breach of our conscientious feelings, we cannot enter into this contract as you would wish us. We therefore protest against this proceeding." But, though they had made very severe laws on the subject of marriage, yet a strange anomaly was suffered to exist. In this country, a couple had only to cross the Tweed, and throw themselves on the mercy of a blacksmith, and, the ceremony being performed, the husband might come back and claim all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages which would result from the most solemn marriage in this country. This showed that it was the true principle of the law of England and of the constitution, not to compel parties to submit to ceremonies which were revolting to their religious principles and feelings. He did not mean to uphold all the details of this bill. It contained two points that ought to be most guardedly examined. One of these was, that it should not be made subsidiary to the performance of clandestine marriages; and next, that the provisions of the bill should not interfere with the privileges and interests of the established clergy. He would, as the bill intended, suffer dissenters to be married by licence; but he would recommend the adoption of proper measures to prevent the celebration of clandestine marriages. The subject of registration was one of the greatest importance. He had heard it said, that the established clergy objected to the mode in which it was proposed that those marriages should be registered. If this was the case, he would alter that part of the bill, and give the clergy no real cause of offence. He begged leave to make one concluding observation. He wished that the subject of the marriage law in general should receive the most serious consideration; because, the period was fast arriving, when, if they did not new model it in some respects, the most lamentable inconvenience would be expe- rienced. He had turned his attention, it would at once be perceived, to the marriage law in Ireland, which loudly called for revision; and though the suggestions which he had, at different times, thrown out on this subject might be repulsive to the feelings of many whose opinions he wished to conciliate, still he felt that, ultimately, the subject must be considered; and he believed those suggestions must be acted on. Such was the state of the marriage law in that country, that it appeared to him necessary that some civil form should be adopted, by which marriage might be contracted; and, after that form had been gone through, such religious rites or ceremonies might be introduced, as were consistent with the faith of the parties contracted.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, that as the present bill was a measure, the object of which was, to give relief to tender consciences, he thought every opportunity should be afforded for solving or removing any difficulties connected with it. He therefore would agree to its going into a committee, where the hon. mover would have full scope for meeting those objections which might be urged against it. He admitted, that the right of marriage stood on very different grounds from the right of holding certain civil offices, or of obtaining certain civil privileges, to which allusion had been made. He was sorry that the scruples, to meet which this bill was brought in, existed at present. For forty or fifty years, the dissenters had not objected to that mode of solemnizing marriage, against which they now protested; and he was concerned that they were not still prepared to accede to the system which had so long continued. They had, however, preferred their claims for an alteration in the mode of solemnizing marriages; and those claims should be seriously considered. Last session, they were told, that a scruple existed in the minds of a class of dissenters against taking of an oath: but, who could tell what was the extent of that scruple, except the individual who felt it? Could any one tell-how far scruples might extend — how far doubts might proceed—with reference to other sects? How, then, were they to legislate so as to give satisfaction to all? The learned gentleman wished the House to go at present as far as this bill went; but he had observed, that if this bill were carried, it would be followed by various others, to embrace every species of scru- ple which might be felt by the dissenters. Now, it would be more satisfactory to know clearly the extent to which it was intended that this measure should be urged. In point of fact, the learned gentleman ought not to vote for this bill at all; because, on his showing, it would not give relief to the Unitarians. The learned gentleman had said, that many of them had objected to going before a clergyman at all. If so, he must contend, that at least to these Unitarians the bill afforded no relief whatever. If every man in society were allowed to select the individual by whom he should be married, the marriage vow, he was quite sure, would not be observed with that sanctity with which it was observed at present. The Quakers and Jews were allowed to marry according to their own rites. The present bill, however, did not place the Unitarians on a level with the Jews and Quakers. No: according to this measure, the Unitarian marriages were to be registered in the church of England. Now, the Jews and Quakers had nothing to do with the church of England; their marriages were solemnized according to their own forms, and were registered in their own peculiar way. It was proposed to suffer these Unitarian marriages to be performed under licence. But here a considerable difficulty arose. If he could give relief to sincere Unitarians, without incurring considerable danger, he would readily do so. If he could easily recognize such Unitarians, his difficulty would be at an end: but, pretended religious scruples might be professed, for the purpose of evading the law of the land; and the chance of such occurrences ought to be carefully guarded against. The Jew and the Quaker could be easily discerned by their garb, and their manners. The moment they were seen they were known. They could not practise deceit with any hope of success. But, if a stolen match were intended between a Protestant and an Unitarian, for the purpose of securing a property, it would be difficult, from the garb or manner of either, to discover that any clandestine proceeding was contemplated. It was also provided by this bill, that bans should be proclaimed in the Unitarian chapel and the Protestant church. But, a Protestant parent was not likely to attend a Unitarian chapel; neither was it probable that a Unitarian parent would attend a Protestant church, How, then, could any system of collusion be discovered? If they passed this bill, they cer- tainly would not have the same check on improper marriages as they had at present. With respect to the question of registration, it was proper to observe the mode in which the Jews and Quakers proceeded. They proved their marriage in the ordinary way; and if that marriage appeared to be valid, according to their respective institutions, no further proceeding was necessary. But, with respect to the marriage of Unitarians, a registration was required by this bill. Now, certainty, the clergy of the church of England might feel sincere and conscientious scruples as to this registration. By this bill Unitarians might be married in their own chapels; but it was a positive injunction on the clergy of the church of England, to register those marriages in the church of England books. According to the doctrine of the church of England, marriage was not merely a civil, but a religious ceremony: it was denominated "holy matrimony:" and, by the present bill, the clergyman was called upon to enter in. that book, which was appropriated to the insertion of entries relative to what the church of England viewed as a religious ceremony, the marriages of parties who denied the divinity of our Saviour. But, that entry was not to be originally made there. The original entry was placed in the Unitarian chapel. So that, if the party married wanted a copy of the entry from the church books, for any legal purpose—what did he receive? He received the copy of a copy. He did not get the best evidence that could be procured. Why not say, at once, that by law the church of England should have nothing to do with this registration? Why not declare, that the record of marriage should be furnished in a regular manner by the Unitarian body, to some proper office? He would not oppose the second reading of the bill; but he must observe, that while he could not coincide in all the opinions expressed by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Robertson), he respected that gentleman for the manly boldness with which he had delivered his sentiments. He did not entertain those fears, as to the safety of the church of England, which the hon. gentleman seemed to feel, in the event of this measure being agreed to. He, however, saw clearly enough the difficulties which were connected with the bill; and, after the intimation which had been given, that a number of measures were contemplated if this bill were carried, he hoped that some distinct and intelligent principle would be laid down, to let the House understand the extent to which it was expected they would go.

Lord George Cavendish

supported the bill, and thought that, in these enlightened times, there could be no objection to afford the relief sought for.

The bill was read a second time.