REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (Hansard, 15 April 1836)

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, that on a former evening he had put a question to the noble Lord respecting this Bill. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be, that, with respect to baptisms, marriages, 1088 and burials of the members of the Church of England, it would leave the registration in precisely the same state in which it was at present. The registration would be carried on according to established usage, and would have full force as evidence in a Court of law.

§ Lord John Russell
was understood to say, that the law, with respect to registrations of baptisms and burials, would be the same as before; the registration of marriages would undergo a slight modification.

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, that the operation of the measure depended entirely on the machinery which they should make use of. That was so much a matter of detail, that he thought it would be better to defer any general consideration of the measure altogether, until they had first done all in their power to render the measure as perfect as possible. It would be much better to urge any objections he entertained to the details when the Bill was in Committee. Under these considerations, as he did not object to the principle of the Bill, he had no objection to allow it to go into Committee, though it contained many provisions which called for alteration and amendment.

Dr. Lushington
said, that according to his apprehension, the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated the purport of the Bill, that it would leave to the parochial registration the same force and effect as it possessed at present. He fully agreed in the suggestion that they should first endeavour to make the measure as perfect as possible in Committee, before taking the discussion upon it generally. He altogether objected to referring the measure to a Select Committee, for the subject had already been considered by a Select Committee. There was another objection to referring the measure to a Select Committee, that they would have to discuss matters of principle, which more properly belonged to the consideration of that House.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
, as he understood the object of the Bill, considered, that it was to relieve the Dissenters from some grievances of which they complained. He wished that the Bill had been limited to that object, and did not interfere with the rights, and let him add the duties, of the ministers of the Established Church. The Bill interfered materially with both, and he wished that the noble Lord would limit the Bill to such an extent as would meet the 1089 wants of the Dissenters, and leave the members of the Church of England in the came condition in which they were at present. It was not enough that the parochial registration should be left in the same state in which it was at present. That was not all he required. He required that the members of the Church of England should be left in the same position in which they were at present. The great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the registration as it stood at present. There might be some occasional irregularities, but he believed that the great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the state of the registration as it existed at present. He wished that the noble Lord would endeavour to so alter the Bill as to limit its provisions to the relief of the Dissenters. He protested against making a general measure, comprehending all classes, when the most important and largest class in the country did not complain of the evils which the Bill professed to remove, but were content with the system as it existed at present.

The Attorney General
felt that the measure would be not merely a benefit to the Dissenters, but would be found to be equally a benefit to the members of the Church of England. With respect to registration at present, as selected to the members of the Church of England, it was exceedingly imperfect. There was no registration of deaths—they merely had a registration of burials. It was impossible, on this account, to find evidence of descent with any certainty beyond two generations, and the consequence was, that this uncertainty led to great litigation and expense. It was of the greatest importance to the members of the Church of England that there should be a general registration of deaths, births, and marriages. He contended, that a general registration would be a great benefit, and concurred fully in the suggestion offered by the right hon. Baronet to postpone the discussion to a future stage of the Bill.

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, that his observations were made under the impression that the Bill left the members of the Church of England in the same state in which they were with respect to registration at present. They were perfectly satisfied with that, and he saw no reason to alter or interfere with it. If he could understand that the Bill would place the members of 1090 the Church of England in a worse position than they were in at present, he should feel bound to give to it every opposition. He understood the principle of the Bill to be, to leave the existing registration uninterfered with, and to give it the fullest sanction and authority as evidence.

§ Mr. Hawes
said, if he understood what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, the Bill did not provide for a uniform system of registration, but the general registration was to be confined to a general and uniform registration of births.

The Attorney General
was sure that the hon. Gentleman had not read the Bill. The Bill provided for a uniform system of births, marriages, and deaths, and included all classes of the community and all sects.

§ Mr. Hawes
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that the intention of the Bill was to establish a uniform registration in the first place of births and deaths, and next of baptisms and marriages. With respect to baptisms and burials performed by the ministers of the Church of England, they would keep their own registers as before, and that registration would be equally valid, as it had always been in courts of law. With respect to births and marriages, there would be a civil and general registry; and whether the entries should be by the minister of a Dissenting sect, or whether according to the form of a civil contract, all would be merged in one registry, which would be a national registry. With respect to parishes, they would have, as at present, their own separate registry for marriages performed in them. Therefore, as he had already explained, these would answer the purpose of a national registry, at the same time that he would not interfere with the registry as at present carried on. He trusted he had now given an answer to the objections taken against this Bill, with respect to its national principle, and with respect to the objection of those dissenting from the Established Church. The Bill would, in the first place, establish a national registry, which would ascertain facts not now ascertained respecting descent; and, secondly, it would enable Dissenters from the Established Church, who did not agree in the ceremonies of that Church, to have a registry without resorting to means for that purpose, to which they conscientiously objected.

Mr. Goulburn
if the Bill were to pass in its present shape, he would give it his utmost opposition. He would have no difficulty in satisfying the House that it would not answer the objects for which it was intended. However, he was ready to consider the Bill in Committee, and to endeavour to improve it as much as possible; but then he would feel it competent for him to enter into an argument whether the Bill, even in that state, was so unexceptionable in its provisions as that they should allow it to pass at all.

§ Lord John Russell
thought it would be better to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and take the discussion on the third reading.

§ Mr. William S. O'Brien
before the noble Lord named the day for the Committee on the Bill, he was anxious to ask him whether or not he would give his assurance that, at a future period, a Bill should be brought in extending the principle of the present measure to Ireland. He looked at this question, not as one which related to sects, but as one which proposed to carry into effect a great national improvement. The evils which the proposed Bill intended to remedy were much greater in Ireland than in England, because the registration in Ireland was in an extremely defective state. The noble Lord had stated on a former occasion, that the Roman Catholic clergy objected to the adoption of a similar measure for Ireland; but he (Mr. O'Brien) could not understand what their reasons were for making such objection. He could not believe that such was the fact. No person was prepared to treat the opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy with more respect than he was; but if such objections did really exist, he thought the House ought to be made acquainted with the nature of them. It was his intention to move, as an instruction to the Committee, to consider the propriety of extending the principle of the Bill to Ireland, with a view of taking the sense of the House on the question; but he would not do so if the noble Lord would say, that in the ensuing Session—he knew it would be impossible to do so in the present—that he would bring in a Bill to extend the principle laid down in this Bill to Ireland.

§ Lord John Russell
said, it was his most anxious wish to extend the principle of the Bill now under discussion to Ireland. But, in the first instance, he thought it was desirable to pause, in order to see how the 1092 present Bill would work in England. In the meantime he would take the subject into his consideration, with the view of considering the propriety of introducing a Bill, founded on the same principles, for Ireland.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
supposing that the clergy of the Church of England should object to this Bill, would the noble Lord refrain from passing it, on the same principle that he declined to bring in a Bill for Ireland in consequence of the opposition which was made to it by the Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland? ["No, no"] Hon. Members might say "no, no," but he (Sir Robert Inglis) understood the noble Lord to say, on the 26th of March, on good authority, that the Roman Catholic clergy did object to the adoption of such a measure for Ireland. If, therefore, the noble Lord was not prepared to pass such a measure for Ireland, in consequence of the objections entertained to it by the Roman Catholic priests, was he prepared to pass the present measure if it should be objected to by the clergy of the Established Church of this country?

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
the declaration made by his noble Friend directly negatived the proposition laid down by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. His noble Friend stated, that he should be prepared on a future occasion, when he had seen the working of the present Bill, to produce a measure applying the principle of it to Ireland, for the purpose of forming a general registration for that country. That was the best answer that could be given to the observations of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Brien) must be aware that, in forming a principle of registration for Ireland, the machinery by which it must be carried into effect must be of a different character from that established for England. The present Bill was an experiment, and the method of its working must be known before a system of machinery for Ireland could be adopted. He was perfectly free to admit, that if an improved system of registration was wanted in this country, it was still more wanted for Ireland. He could assure the hon. Member that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in common with his noble Friend, was most anxious that a Bill should be brought in to extend the principle of registration contemplated by this Bill to Ireland.