REGISTERS OF BIRTHS. (Hansard, 27 June 1839)

§ Lord John Russell
moved, that the report on the Registers of Births Bill be brought up.

§ Mr. Goulburn
was anxious to avail himself of the present occasion to make a few observations to the House. He had observed at the time that the bill passed, that it would afford facilities to clandestine and illegal marriages, and he was sorry to find that his anticipation had been fulfilled 1000 to a certain extent. In the other House he found, that a very remarkable case of this kind had been brought under notice, and his must have made a great impression on all that had listened to it. He had also before him a number of cases of almost a similar nature, and it appeared, that when persons could not get married by bans, in consequence of the degree of consanguinity existing between the parties, that they went before the registrar and succeeded in their object. He had learned also from some of the officers of the ecclesiastical courts, that there was a much greater number of illegal marriages brought before those courts than was formerly the case. He had had cases before him, in one of which a man had married his late wife's sister's daughter. In the first instance, an application being made to the rector to marry the parties, he objected to do so on the bans being published, in consequence of the affinity of the parties: he also informed the registrar of the circumstance, and prevented the marriage taking place before him. Some time afterwards the rector of the parish went out of town, and on his return he found that a fresh application had been made to the registrar, and the marriage had taken place before him. There was also another case in which the minister of a parish had refused to marry a man to his late wife's sister; but he found that a short time afterwards the parties got married in a Dissenting chapel, although their offspring would, of course, be illegitimate. He also complained that the present system of registering births was most imperfect, and had tended much to interfere with the baptisms in the Church. In the large parishes in the country this was found to be particularly the case. For instance, in Bury, in Lancashire, in 1836, the year before the bill came into operation, there had been 806 baptisms while in 1838 the number was only 579, shewing a diminution of upwards of 200. He also complained, that in some instances in the metropolis, the rule had not been adhered to of appointing persons to offices under the bill that had kept aloof from political agitation. He would instant a case in the parish of St. Giles, London, where a man had been appointed who had taken a most prominent part at a public meeting against the Church. He contended also, from the documents on the Table, that, so far from there being a more complete system of births, deaths, &c, than formerly, that 1001 it was directly the contrary, and more particularly so in the metropolis. Thus, in the returns for last year for the metropolis, he found, that the number of registered births amounted to 37,735, while the number of deaths amounted to 53,511. Such was the return from the Registrar-general's office; and if this return were correct, all the parishes in the metropolis must be in a state of gradual depopulation. He believed, however, that the fact was, that there was an increasing population by births in most parishes. Taking, again, the proportion of births to baptisms, the latter greatly exceeded the former. In the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, the Registrar-general's return gave the number of births during the last year at 878, while the parochial returns gave the number of baptisms at 1,306. He might be told, that children were brought from other parishes to be baptised here, but he was not aware whether this was the case or not. At any rate, it was an extravagant disproportion between the births and baptisms. Again, in the parish of Marylebone, according to the returns, there had been 2,500 births last year, while in the same time there had been 3,700 deaths. According, then, to this return, a larger proportion of the parish was dying off every year. The same observation applied to the parishes of Hackney and St. Pancras. The chief ground upon which the Government introduce the Register Bill was to afford a remedy for the inaccuracies of the registers kept by the parochial clergy. He did not think, that the object had been attained. If this new system of civil registration were to go on, it was of the utmost importance that it should be strictly accurate. Up to the present moment, he must say, that so far from having given any additional security, the new system had only added to the embarrassments which existed previous to its adoption.

§ Lord John Russell
did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Registration Bill had greatly disappointed the public. The disappointment could not have been greater than might naturally have been expected, especially when it was recollected how exceedingly defective the old system was. Even though baptism may have been duly registered in their respective localities, the returns were not sent to the diocese, or to any other fit place, to be enrolled. In attempting the 1002 new system, it was proposed that the Act should be made compulsory, but Parliament would not agree with the Government, and it was made voluntary to a considerable extent. However, there had been, on the whole, considerable accuracy, making allowances for the difficulties of a beginning and the obstructions of prejudices, as might be seen on referring to the Registrar-general's Report. It was stated, that the proportion of deaths was one in forty-five, and the probable number of deaths during the year, 340,549. The right hon. Gentleman stated the number to be 335,968; the accounts of the Registrar-general made it 335,926, making a difference of about 5,000 between the probable numbers and the calculations of Mr. Finlaison. He (Lord John Russell) would admit, that in the registration of births there had been a very considerable deficiency, but not more than might have been looked for. He was sorry to say, that one fact, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) did not allude to, accounted for this in a great degree. This was the effort that had been made by a great part of the clergy to induce their flocks not to comply with the law—by exhortations, and by printed circulars. No wonder, therefore, that a great difference should appear between the number of births and that of baptisms registered. He found, that the number of births registered for the quarter ending March 31, 1838, was 113,815; in June 30, 1838, it was 121,281. The average number of births for the whole year was 480,000. The number of baptisms registered for the whole of the year 1838, was 444,589. The people were now gradually conforming to the law. The deficiencies arising from the religious scruples of parents, who were averse from baptism altogether, and the feelings of those who put off baptising until the children were five or six years old, would be remedied by the operation of the present Act. The opposition of the clergy to the measure, proved what he had often deplored before, viz., the want of religious education amongst the people. No doubt there had been several clandestine marriages under the present system. He had heard of one illegal marriage of which no notice was given within his own personal knowledge; three such marriages had come to his knowledge altogether, and of course there might have been others. These were matters which, in 1003 such a large population, would of course take place, and had happened in former times, owing to ignorance on the part of the clergymen of the circumstances of the case. These points had, moreover, been particularly noted by those who were desirous of finding fault with the operation of the bill. With regard to the persons who had been appointed by the Registrar-general, he had no means of satisfying the right hon. Gentleman, as the names of those persons had never come before him. He was willing to allow, that there were some defects in the bill, which it would be very desirable to remedy; but he thought it would be better to watch the working of the bill for a little longer, and thus obtain a knowledge of what was really required for perfecting the measure. But on the whole, he saw no reason to after the opinion he had expressed on first introducing the bill, that it was advisable to establish a civil registration with an office in London, to which copies of the registry might be transmitted, and where they might be referred to. This was an advantage that no other civilised nation was deprived of, and he thought it was very desirable that we should do all in our power to improve and extend this system.

§ Mr. Goulburn
apprehended, that the noble Lord had construed into an opposition to the law the exhortations which the clergy had fell themselves called upon to issue to their flocks, to urge on them the necessity of baptism for their children.

§ The Attorney-General
said, the case was not, as supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he regretted exceedingly that in many instances the clergy had set themselves in direct opposition to the law. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten their minds on the subject, and make them understand that the law of the land must be obeyed. A case had come before him the other day, in which a clergyman had actually refused to marry a couple on the certificate of the superintendent registrar. Now, for such a disobedience to an Act of Parliament the clergyman was clearly liable to indictment. He had not advised that course to be pursued; he hoped it would not become necessary; but if the clergymen continued openly to defy the law, some measures must be taken for its enforcement.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
wished to-know, if the learned Gentleman considered an Act of Parliament imperative on every priest to 1004 administer the sacrament of marriage on the certificate of a superintendent registrar. Did he mean to say, a priest of the Church of England was the only person subject to legal infliction for disobeying this law? He really wished for his opinion on this subject, although on this occasion he should expect it without the usual fee.

§ The Attorney-General
was of opinion, that if an Act of Parliament called upon a priest of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of England, or any other person, to do anything, that person was bound to obey the law. In the case alluded to, the clergyman was not only liable to ecclesiastical censure, as he would have been before the passing of this Act, but he had been guilty of an indictable offence.