Commons Sitting of 13 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Highway Rates Bill.
Petitions presented. By Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, from Patentees, Inventors, and Projectors, in London and Westminster, Complaining of the Operation of the Patents for Inventions' Act.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Renfrew; by Captain WEMYSS, from three Places in Fife; and by Mr. WYSE, from a Place in Ireland, against the Lords' Amendments to the Corporation Bill for Ireland.

SIR FREDERICK TRENCH AND MR. RIGBY WASON.
The Serjeant at Arms (Colonel Gossett) reported that Sir Frederick Trench and Rigby Wason, Esq. were in custody: on the motion of Lord John Russell, both hon. Members were ordered to attend forthwith in their places. The hon. Members were brought in and took their places. The Report from the Committee on the Durham Railway was read.
Lord John Russellmoved, that the Speaker do call on both the hon. Members to rise in their places, and give an assurance to the House that the affair between them should not be carried further.
Motion agreed to.
The Speaker called on the hon. Members to comply with the wishes of the House. [A pause.]
The Speaker: If the hon. Gentlemen,

487
in the present case, persist in refusing the pledge which I, in the name of the House, have required of them, it is clear that the only course left for adoption is, at once, to commit both to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.
Sir Frederick Trenchwas desirous of laying before the House a simple statement of the facts; and after some opposition each hon. Member entered into an explanation of the personal difference which had occurred between them in the South Durham Railway Committee. A lengthened discussion ensued, which at length ended by the two hon. Members accommodating their difference by a little mutual retractation, and the matter ended.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Municipal Corporations' Bill was read.
Sir Robert Peelwished to know whether the amendments the hon. and learned Member meant to move, were amendments upon the Lords' amendments, and whether they were printed, because they could do no more than deal with the Lords' amendments.
Mr. O'Loghlenwas understood to say the amendments were not printed, and that it was intended to move the re-introduction of certain clauses which had teen rejected by the Lords. He was ready, however, to afford every explanation.
Several verbal and other amendments were proposed and put from the Chair.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to know what was doing, as he really could not understand it. He was bound to suspect every measure or amendment proposed by the other side.
On the next amendment being proposed,
Sir Robert Peelsaid, this was utterly unintelligible. After the debate which had taken place, and the decisive majority that had followed, he did not intend any opposition of a vexatious character. But in a Bill of such importance, they ought to see what they were doing. He hoped the amendments they were making would be printed, so that they might see what they were about.
Lord John Russellsaid, they were now merely restoring some of the original clauses.
Mr. Sergeant Jackson: If they did not see what the alterations were, they might as well leave the House.
Lord John Russellsaid, the great prin-
488
ciple was the restoration of the original clauses. With respect to the new clauses, they would be printed in the course of two or three hours.
Sir Robert Peelthought, as they were legislating on a matter of such importance, that it would be most desirable that all the alterations should he printed.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the measure being thrust upon the House in what he called so unfair a a manner. One single word introduced into a clause might overturn the constitution of the country; therefore he objected to the measure being proceeded with in such a way.
The other clauses up to 85 of the original Bill, with some omissions and amendments, were restored. At three o'clock the House adjourned, and was resumed again at five o'clock.

PAPER DUTIES DRAWBACK.
Lord Francis Egertonbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what period it was proposed that the new duties on paper should come into operation, both as regarded the first and second class paper, and the stained paper, and also whether he contemplated allowing a drawback on the stocks in hand?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad to inform his noble Friend, in reply to the question he had put to him, and he hoped it might reach the parties interested, that the proposition he had submitted for the alteration of the duty on the first class paper, would take effect from the October quarter. This was his original intention and statement in submitting the proposition, but, inasmuch as it had been somewhat misconceived, and not, perhaps, as generally known as might have been wished, he was very well pleased to have an opportunity of re-stating it. With respect to the stained paper, he had been very much pressed by a great majority of the parties interested in that branch of the trade to fix an earlier period for the proposition taking effect, by substituting the July for the October quarter. He believed this would be very convenient for the trade itself, as otherwise, stained paper being rather a matter of luxury than of necessity, there might be an interruption to the manufacture. With respect to allowing a drawback on the stock in hand, he thought it was more just and expedient to adhere to the principle on which Parliament had of late years acted in making alterations of duty, and not to allow a

489
drawback on the stock in hand. All the motives which induced Parliament on other occasions to refuse allowing a drawback existed in the present case, with some additional considerations into which he need not then enter. For the purpose, however, of affording accommodation and facilities to the trade, he had provided not only that the privilege of manufacturing and storing in bond should be continued, but that in case any very great quantity of a particular paper affected by these regulations should remain on hand in the stationer's stocks, on the 10th of October, allowance should be made for it; not an allowance in the shape of drawback generally, but an allowance on the duty on paper permitted into stationers' shops, under particular circumstances. It was impossible wholly to remedy the inconvenience to which his noble Friend had adverted. He had endeavoured to remedy it partially, to the utmost of his power, and he hoped he had succeeded.
Sir George Clerksaid, that many paper-makers in Scotland had very large stocks on hand. There was one individual within his own knowledge, who had no less than 15,000 reams; and if this paper which had paid the whole duty, remained on hand until October, and then had to be sold at a reduced price, without any allowance of drawback, he need not say, that the loss would be very great. He hoped his right hon. Friend would allow some drawback on paper that had paid the whole duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that this would be in fact allowing a drawback on the stock in hand. This he could not consent to, because it could not be done without exposing the revenue to very considerable loss.
Subject dropped.

THE FACTORY SYSTEM.
Lord Ashleycalled the attention of his Majesty's Government to a fact which he stated on the authority of a Yorkshire paper. It appeared in that paper according to the confession of the masters themselves, that five boys, of between twelve and fifteen years of age, had been made to work for thirty-four hours successively, in a shocking hole, devoted to the tearing up of woollen goods; the atmosphere of it was so noxious and offensive, that the men who worked in it were obliged to wear handkerchiefs tied over their mouths to prevent their inhaling the foul air. The fact was proved before the magistrates, and the masters, Messrs. Ibbetson, Battley, and Co., were convicted
490
in the full penalty. They alleged, in extenuation of their conduct, that the steam boiler had burst; but this was, in fact, no excuse at all. What he wished to ask his noble Friend opposite was this—that he would have the goodness to direct the inspector of the district to visit the spot, to make inquiries and report to him, and that he would lay the Report upon the Table.
Lord John Russellwould take care that the inspector of the district should make every inquiry, and that his report should be communicated to the House.
Subject dropped.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
The House, on the Motion of Lord John Russell, resolved itself into a Committee on the Registration of Births Bill.
Clause 42nd was put and agreed to.
Dr. Bowringthen proposed the Clause of which he had given notice, for the purpose of allowing the registers of the Dissenters, which were at present kept at considerable expense, to be received by the Registrar- General.
The Attorney-Generalobjected to the Clause, on the ground, that the registers of the Dissenters might be in many respects, inaccurate and calculated to mislead.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had no objection to appointing a Commission to inquire into the validity and nature of the various registers kept by the Dissenters.
Dr. Bowringobserved that, with the understanding that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject, he would withdraw the clause.
The Schedules were agreed to, the Bill to be reported, and the House resumed.

MARRIAGES.
The House afterwards went into Committee on the Marriages Bill.
Upon Clause 15th being proposed,
Dr. Bowringmoved an amendment, that instead of twenty householders attending a dissenting chapel being required to sign a certificate, to have it licensed for the purpose of marriages being celebrated in it, the certificate of ten householders should be sufficient
Dr. Lushingtonopposed the amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 22; Noes 128—Majority 106.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Harland, W. C.

Bowes, J.

Howard, P. H.

Grote, G.

Hindley, C

Hutt, W.

Hector, J. C.

491

Lynch, A. H.

Smith, Ben.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Scourfield, W. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Thornely, T.

Pease, J.

Thompson, Col.

Parrott, J.

Wakely, T.

Potter, R.

Williams, W.

Roche, D.

TELLER.

Rundle, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Clause l8th, enacting that marriages may be celebrated before the Superintendent Registrar, was proposed.
Mr. Poulterobjected to this Clause. It was a Clause that separated the contract of marriage from what it always had previously in this country, the sanction of a religious ceremony. The members of the Church of England, he was sure, would not accept of such a Clause, and he believed that the Dissenters were not prepared to accept it, as they had last year refused to accept the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, which permitted these marriages to take place as civil contracts. Many of the Dissenters, he knew, were desirous of retaining the religious sanction for their marriages, and their feelings were alone exerted against it by the undue and obnoxious restrictions imposed by the old Marriage Act. In this case, as in others, the extreme restrictions had driven to violent principles and extreme theories, which otherwise they would never entertain. He hoped the noble Lord would permit this Clause to be expunged from the Act.
Mr. Bainesconsidered, that there would be great weight in the objection made by the hon. Member, if it were imperative upon the Dissenters that their marriages should take place as a civil contract. Under this Act, it was optional with them to have the marriage celebrated as a civil con-tract, or under a religious sanction. It being optional, all objection was removed. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet was objected to, because there was too much of the civil contract enforced with respect to the marriages of the Dissenters.
Sir Robert Inglisdecidedly objected to the Clause. With the single exception of the time of the great Rebellion, there was no one instance in the history of the country, of marriage having been considered otherwise than as a religious ceremony. This was a solitary attempt to give a civil character to a religious contract.
Dr. Lushington: The great principle of the Bill, and the principle which he advocated, was this, that marriage was a natural fight, to which all the subjects of this land had a full and complete title, and that the
492
legislature had no pretence, justice, or authority for confining or limiting it, except so far as was essentially necessary to insure that publicity which would prevent furtive connexions and illicit marriages. If this clause were omitted, the whole remedy of the Bill would be left out. Up to the year 1756, marriage was a mere legal contract. Two people declaring themselves man and wife before witnesses were as indubitably married as persons making the same declaration in Scotland, with the exception of not being entitled to claim some obsolete remedies as to real property. Under this law the people of Scotland existed to the present day. Were they regardless of their duty to their Creator? It would be difficult to find on the whole surface of the globe a more religious people than the Scotch. He made his stand upon the great and broad principle which he had ever maintained in that House. He denied the right, though he could not deny the power, of the legislature to infringe upon the conscience of any individual whatever, with respect to those natural rights, of which marriage was of all others the foremost and most necessary.
Mr. Hardyconceived that by the Bill marriage was converted into a mere civil contract. All that was required was, that some ceremony of marriage should take place in a registered building, which had been certified by twenty householders to be a place for religious worship.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the great object of the Bill was to allow every person to be married according to whatever form his conscience dictated. Here were first members of the Church of England, next the Dissenters, who considered marriage a religious ceremony, and preferred being married in their own chapels; the first were left in their present situation; the second were permitted to carry their wishes into effect. There were other classes of Dissenters who considered marriage not a religious but a civil ceremony. Taking the broad principle of religious liberty, he felt that they were bound to provide for all these classes; he did not think that the House had a right to tell one class of men that their scruples were just and reasonable, and to refuse to judge of those of others. If the Bill were carried with that clause, he would admit that he entertained no doubt but that ninety-nine marriages out of one hundred would still be considered as religious ceremonies. Although the number of marriages celebrated upon any other principle might

493
be few, however, still the principle was a great one, and they were bound to maintain it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it appeared to him that all the Bill did was to enable the marriage ceremony to be performed in a registered building; but that it did not require any religious ceremony. He required a civil contract, as an essential condition of marriage, trusting that there would always be some religious ceremony, being unable to define what it should be; but wishing that it should be in accordance with the conscientious belief of those who engaged in it. He wished to have one point distinctly understood. Supposing both parties were members of the Church of England, was it intended in their case to dispense with the rite of marriage according to the Established Church? He hoped, and fully believed, that it was not intended. He did not consider that he had any right to interfere with the solemnization of marriage by the Dissenters; but he was very anxious that the effect of the Bill, with reference to members of the Church of England, should be fully understood.
Mr. Lawobjected to the Bill as a proposed gratuitous desecration of the marriage rite. He did not think that it would be at all uncharitable to impose the restraint of a religious ceremony upon Dissenters.
Sir R. Peelthought he imposed no invidious task upon the Dissenters when he required that such of them as objected to marriage being considered a religious ceremony, should state their objection upon the register. This was really one of the most important parts of the Bill, and he trusted the House would arrive at no hasty decision upon it.
Mr. Prymesaw no hardship whatever in requiring some religious ceremony in addition to a mere legal contract, or at most some declaration of a conscientious objection on behalf of the party.
Mr. Milescontended, as the clause stood, that it would tend to encourage clandestine marriages.
The Attorney-Generalthought, that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some ceremony which would make it known to the world that a marriage compact had been entered into between parties. He did not think that the adoption of the alterations that had been suggested from the other side of the House would be at all advisable.
Mr. ArthurTrevor contended that making marriage a civil contract would be
494
highly injurious; and passing the clause as it stood would greatly increase the number of clandestine marriages.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhoped that the House would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, which, if adopted, would destroy the principle as well as the utility of the Bill.
The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 58; Noes 123 — Majority 65
Clauses to the 28th were agreed to. The House resumed,