HC Deb 04 June 1856 vol 142 cc939-49

Order for Committee read; House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. HARDY

said, he should oppose the clause, unless some provision for the public announcement of marriages in lieu of bans was made.

MR. PELLATT

said, there was ample provision in the Bill generally for the publication of marriages.

MR. HARDY

said, he thought that the superintendent's office was not such a place as to make a notice affixed there sufficiently public, and that was all that was provided for by the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he considered that the proposal to substitute the superintending registrar's office for the Board of Guardians, as was the case in the clause under discussion, as the place in which the publication of marriages should take place, would not ensure that publicity which it was desirable should be maintained.

MR. PELLATT

said, he would beg to explain that Dissenters deemed it a degradation to be obliged to go to the Board of Guardians for the publication of bans. The affixing a list at the doors of churches and chapels had not been approved, and there was no other mode than to resort to the superintendent registrar's.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he could understand how publication at the Board of Guardians might be offensive, and, if so, the grievance ought to be removed.

MR. HENLEY

said, he concurred in the belief that persons in an independent position would not like to have anything to do with Boards of Guardians or any officials connected with the administration of the poor laws. The feeling was natural, and would perhaps be felt the more strongly by humble individuals than by persons in a higher sphere. The great difficulty was, how to secure efficient publication. He was afraid the proposal in the Bill would not give better security than now existed, but it would not give worse, and if it relieved the Dissenters from a grievance, he should not object to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2, (Notice of Marriage to be accompanied by the declaration of one of the parties, that there is no lawful hindrance to such Marriage).

MR. SPOONER

said, the clause only required that notice should be given to the superintendent registrar of one district, where the parties resided in separate districts. The law with regard to bans was, that they should be published in both parishes, when the parties resided in different parishes.

MR. PELLATT

said, he considered that a provision made in another clause of the Bill, by which parties in such cases were required to make a declaration, would more than counterbalance the notice required to be given to one superintending registrar. He would, however, consent to the introduction of some words on the third reading of the Bill, which would render necessary the double publication in cases to which reference had been made.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, that the Bill would open the door to marriages of persons of all persuasions, whether Dissenters, Roman Catholics, or members of the Established Church. It was, therefore, important that facilities should not be given for clandestine marriages. He thought that notice ought to be given to the superintendent registrar of each district in which the parties resided.

MR. G. BUTT

said, he was of opinion that the declaration ought to be made in both districts. He would also suggest that provision ought to be made for filing and preserving the declaration.

MR. PELLATT

said, that the clause should be altered to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, both with respect to the double notices, when parties resided in different districts, and the preservation of the declarations.

MR. HARDY

said, that the clause required that the declaration that no lawful hindrance existed to the marriage should be made before the superintendent registrar or registrars, "or otherwise, in the presence of two credible witnesses, being severally householders, resident within the same district, who shall respectfully attest the same by adding thereto his or her name, description, and place of abode." It was dangerous to allow persons to make the declaration before persons of their own choosing, when they ought to go before a judicial officer. He would therefore move that the words in question should be omitted.

Words struck out; Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 3.

Clause 4 (Notice of Marriage without Licence to be affixed in Superintendent Registrar's Office).

MR. HENLEY

said, he apprehended that the first part of the clause would be found inconvenient in practice. It provided that the notice of marriage should be hung up in some conspicuous place in the office of the superintendent registrar. That would be a long document, and if a copy of the entry of the notice in the superintendent registrar's book were hung up it would be much more likely to attract notice.

SIR JOHN DUCKWORTH

said, he would move the insertion of the words "and outside" in that part of the clause which provided that a notice of these marriages should be posted inside the office of the registrar, on the ground that sufficient publicity would not be given to them unless they were published on the exterior of the building.

MR. MASSEY

said, he thought that the hanging up of the "notice" in the registrar's office might be dispensed with, and instead thereof publication of the entry in the registrar's book.

MR. G. BUTT

said, he would suggest that the words "true and exact" be omitted, the word "copy" of the entry being sufficient. Technical precision might lead to difficulties. The substance of the notice, he considered, would be sufficient.

MR. MASSEY

said, that on the contrary, he thought the words "true and exact" ought to stand. The copy of the entry should be exact, and there could be no difficulty in making it so.

MR. THORNELY

said, he thought the hanging up of the notice outside the registrar's office objectionable.

MR. E. BALL

said, he should oppose the Amendment. The coarse, offensive, and vulgar exposure which the hon. Baronet required was not thought necessary in the case of a member of the Church of England, and he could not understand why it should be necessary in the case of a Dissenter.

MR. MASSEY

said, he was quite of opinion that publicity should be as great as possible, but he thought that the posting of the notice inside the registrar's office would be as great a publicity as reading the notice before the Board of Guardians. The course proposed would greatly increase the labours of the registrars. He could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. BECKETT DENISON

said, he would suggest that registrars should put an abstract of the notices outside their offices, and then persons who wished for further information might go inside and examine the notices themselves. This would only be equivalent to the publication of bans in the case of members of the Established Church.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he did not see that the course proposed could give any greater pain to the Dissenters than reading the notice before the Board of Guardians, or publishing the bans in the parish church. It was not a question between Dissenters and members of the Church of England, but simply how most efficiently the solemn rite of matrimony might be performed.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, he would propose to adopt a middle course, by directing that the names of the parties about to be married should be posted outside the registrar's office; and then any one who wished to obtain further information, could do so by having access to the original notice.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he objected to the names of the Dissenters being gibbeted outside the registrar's office, exposed to the idle gaze of every passer by. The Amendment, in his opinion, was most objectionable, and partook very much of rash legislation. It was making one law for the rich and another for the poor, for while the rich could be married by special licence, the names of the poor would be published in the most offensive manner.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would remind the hon. Baronet that this clause applied only to marriage without special licence, and that the operation of the Bill was not confined to Dissenters. He must deny also that this was merely a Dissenters' question. It was well known that many members of the Church of England were married by these notices instead of bans when they desired secrecy. He could not understand why Mary Smith and John Thomas should object to have their names placed outside an office instead of having them published in a church.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he considered that the proposition would be most objectionable, and most disagreeable to the whole body of Dissenters throughout the country. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department would divide against the Amendment, and he himself felt so strongly upon the subject, that if upon division the Amendment was carried, he should advise his hon. and learned Friend to abandon the Bill altogether. Let them continue the present plan of reading the notices in the workhouse rather than adopt the mode suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Duckworth).

MR. HENLEY

said, he had on a former occasion unsuccessfully endeavoured to exclude members of the Church of England from the operation of the Bill, and, therefore, in the Amendments which had been proposed by members of that Church there was no undue interference in the affairs of Dissenters.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, about thirty years ago a Bill was passed requiring notices of marriage to be posted on the church doors, but it created so great a stir and so much dissatisfaction, that the Act was repealed the following year. The parson charged an additional fee for posting on the church doors, but though the Bill was repealed, they had not taken off the fee.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he was aware of a case in which a Roman Catholic lady had clandestinely married a gentleman of another persuasion before a registrar, which proved that the Bill did not affect Protestant Dissenters only. He saw nothing indelicate in the proposition of the hon. Baronet. He had himself gone through the ceremony of having his name called out in a public church without feeling any inconvenience. Clandestine marriages were increasing to such a degree and they were the cause of so much misery and crime, that the State ought to, interpose and put every possible restraint upon them.

MR. MASSEY

said, he must repeat that he thought the posting of the names inside the registrar's office would be sufficient. The registrar's office was a well known one; and to it persons wishing to make inquiries on the subject of marriages were in the habit of going. After the opinions expressed by Dissenting Members of the House, he was of opinion that the Amendment should not be persevered in. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman. (Mr. Henley) had on the paper an Amendment, having for its object to exclude members of the Church of England from the operations of the measure. He (Mr. Massey) was quite prepared to support any proposition having for its object to oblige members of the Church of England, about to be married according to the rites of that Church, to comply with all its requirements in the case of marriages, for he could see no reason why they should not do so.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he must complain that the title given to the Bill, that of a Dissenters' Marriage Bill, was a pure misnomer. The word "Dissenter" never occurred in its provisions, and it had no exclusive application to Dissenters. If, as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) said, in introducing the measure, the feelings of Dissenters were to be considered, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought he might claim the same privilege on behalf of the members of the Church of England. As the Bill now stood, there were no distinctions between the marriages of Dissenters and those of the Church of England. If the hon. Member would consent that members of the Church of England should be relieved from the difficulties imposed on them, he (Mr. Gladstone) would support the measure, for he was anxious to extend as much relief as possible to Dissenters. He would suggest that the clause recommended on a former occasion by his hon. Colleague (Sir W. Heathcote), exempting members of the Established Church from the operation of the Bill, should be introduced. If that course were adopted, it would tend very much to shorten the discussion, and the future consideration of the Bill would be free from difficulty.

MR. E. BALL

said, he trusted the Committee would not allow persons' names to be exposed in the way proposed, so that every rude boy might have the opportunity of interlining the announcement with remarks of his own.

MR. HENLEY

said, he must also express a hope that after what had been stated by the hon. Under Secretary of State, the present Amendment would be withdrawn.

SIR JOHN DUCKWORTH

said, that when he proposed his Amendment he had not the slightest idea that his proposal would be considered by the Dissenters an offensive one. His only object was to provide against clandestine marriages, whether between members of the Church of England or Dissenters; and after what had been said on the subject, he would withdraw his Amendment if he received an assurance from the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that the measure would be so altered, in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Henley) proposed Amendment, as to apply to Dissenters' marriages only.

MR. PELLATT

said, he would reserve his opinion on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments till Clause 11 was before the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought that under the circumstances the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Duckworth) could not withdraw his Amendment. The speech of the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Massey) had induced hon. Members to believe that the view embodied in the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was concurred in by those who were anxious to pass this Bill into law; but he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that the hon. Member who had last spoken had not dealt candidly with the Committee.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the Committee had a right to know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Pellatt) concurred in the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary.

MR. KENDALL

said, he was far from being a Dissenter, but mixing a good deal amongst the Dissenters of Cornwall, who were a most respectable body of Christians, he was well acquainted with their feelings, and was confident that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Exeter were adopted, it would prove most distasteful to them, and be regarded in the light of an injury which they could never forget.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he must press upon the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Duckworth) the propriety of withdrawing his Amendment in favour of the arrangement suggested by the Under Secretary of State.

MR. HENLEY

said, it must be admitted that the greater proportion of clandestine marriages would probably take place amongst parties who were members of the Church of England, and who would avail themselves of this new method of celebrating marriages rather than have recourse to notice by bans. The Members of that House, therefore, who were connected with the Established Church had a right to look with some degree of jealousy at any proposition which would have the effect of encouraging such an irregular practice. He was not, however, wedded to any particular form of words; and if hon. Members opposite would give an assurance that they would agree to the insertion of such words as would accomplish the object of the hon. Under Secretary, he should be perfectly satisfied with the arrangement.

MR. STANHOPE

said, that as representing a large and respectable body of Wesleyan Methodists, he felt that he was placed in a very unfair position by the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted. If this were really and truly a "Dissenters' Marriage Bill," he should not for one moment be justified in obstructing the wishes of those hon. Gentlemen, who were undoubtedly the best judges as to what the sentiments and opinions of their own persuasion were. But he would urge upon them, that if they did not consent to make the Bill at a future stage a Marriage Bill applicable to Protestant Dissenters and to none others, and still persisted in extending the operation of a Dissenters' Marriage Bill to members of the Church of England, they must hold themselves responsible to the country for any annoyance or evil that might eventually result.

MR. BOWYER

said, he would urge upon the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) the propriety of agreeing to the introduction of such a clause as would exclude Church Marriages from the operation of the Bill.

MR. PELLATT

said, that though disposed to conciliation, he felt that he was placed in a very responsible position. The fact was, that this was a "poor man's question;" and he must contend that as much facility should be given to the poor to celebrate marriages as was now enjoyed by the rich. He could not agree to a proposal which had already been tried in the Act 3 Geo. IV., c. 75, which failing, had to be repealed by Statute the very following year.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was clear that the hon. Member for Southwark had altogether thrown over the notion that the Bill was confined to Dissenters. He now said that it was a "poor man's question;" and what he wanted was to allow members of the Church of England who objected to the publicity of bans to go to the superintendent registrar's office, put up a notice there, and then come back to their own minister and compel him to marry them.

SIR JOHN DUCKWORTH

said, he would have been content to follow the advice of his hon. Friends near him and withdraw his Amendment, had not the proposal of the Under Secretary of State been repudiated by the hon. Member for Southwark. That being the case, he should certainly divide the Committee on his Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 85: Majority 8.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he wished to know of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) whether, after the decision just arrived at, he was prepared to withdraw the Bill?

MR. PELLATT

said, he would beg to inform the noble Lord that the Bill was not in the hands of the hon. Member for Sheffield alone. He (Mr. Pellatt) had also a share in the measure, and for his part was prepared to go on with it.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill; as were also Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive.

Clause 11.

MR. BOWYER

said, upon the face of this clause it was doubtful whether clergymen would not be compelled to celebrate marriages upon the mere production of the Registrar's certificate, without going through the forms of their Church. Now, under the existing law they could decline to solemnise a marriage except in a manner conformable to the canons of the Church to which they belonged, and that right should be reserved to them.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had a proviso to move to the clause, which would meet the case. His proviso was this— Provided always, that no such marriage as aforesaid shall be solemnised in any such registered building without the consent of the minister, or of one of the trustees, owners, deacons, or managers thereof, nor in any church or chapel of the United Church of England and Ireland, without the consent of the minister thereof, any statute or statutes to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, the object of the proviso seemed to be that no minister of the Church of England should be compellable to perform the marriage ceremony where the canons of the Church had not been complied with. But he questioned if the words of the proviso did not go further, and render a marriage void when, through some mischance, it had been solemnised without the consent of the minister. For instance, with the most perfect good faith, a man and woman might go and get married behind the back of the minister, and yet years afterwards the validity of the marriage and the legitimacy of the children might be called in question, owing to the consent not having been obtained, or owing to there being some difficulty in the way of showing that it had.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, that contingency was already provided for by the 16th clause, which enacted that, after any marriage shall have been solemnized under the authority of this Act, it should not be necessary to give proof, among other things, of the consent of any person whose consent is required by law.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had no desire to introduce words that could by any possibility have that effect. As the Bill stood, with the saving 16th clause, there was no fear of any such misconstruction. He would, however, consult those who were best able to give an opinion upon the subject, and if they entertained a doubt respecting it, he should be happy to amend the proviso on a future stage of the Bill.

MR. BOWYER moved the insertion in the proviso, after the words "of the United Church of England and Ireland," of the words, "or of the Church of Rome," which was agreed to; and

On the Motion of Mr. GURNEY, the word "officiating" was inserted before the word "minister."

On the Question that the proviso stand part of the clause,

MR. HUTCHINS

said, it appeared to him that the Bill contained more unintelligible clauses than any Bill he ever saw; and he felt surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) should have given his consent to their being introduced.

MR. MASSEY

said, he considered that the clause, as framed, was perfectly sufficient of itself, without the addition of the proviso, to accomplish the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had in view, inasmuch as the registrar of any marriage must receive the signature of the officiating minister.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.

House resumed.

Bill reported as amended.

The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.