HC Deb 15 June 1898 vol 59 cc336-50
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

moved— Page 3. line 8, at end, add— 'No person shall officiate at or solemnise a marriage in any registered building under this Act unless he has been certified as having been duly authorise for the purpose by the trustees or other governing body of the building, and it shall be the duty of the trustees or governing body of every registered building to certify the name and address of the person authorised for that building to the Registrar General and to the superintendent registrar of the district in which the building is situate: 'Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building.' He said: should like to hear from those Members who are in a position to speak whether there will be any difficulty in any Nonconformist body in carrying out this proposed system. Unless it satisfies the whole of the Nonconformist bodies there is no use in moving it. I do not think the House will come to the conclusion that I have not gone far enough in dealing with the matter. In a previous Session I proposed a, different system: I proposed that there should be a personal responsibility on the part of ministers, and that the Registrar General should satisfy himself as to their connection with the building and other matters to justify the persons on the list acting as registers. I am bound to say with regard to that scheme of mine, though I received very kind letters from Nonconformists, it met with considerable opposition from the officials. The Registrar General has led me to endeavour to find out some other scheme of dealing with the question. We must be satisfied, before the presence of the public official who is responsible for due registration can be dispensed with, that there is a person duly certified for the purpose of solemnising marriages by the trustee or other governing body.

* MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

The difficulty of this clause, so far as the Methodist religious bodies are concerned —and I speak not only for the Wesleyans, but for the Primitive Methodists, the New Connexion, and the Free Church Methodists—is this, that in four chapels out of five there is no minister actually resident and attached to those particular chapels. Take, for example, the Division of Louth. In the town of Louth there are three Wesleyan ministers, one Primitive Methodist, and two Methodist Free Church ministers, and these six gentlemen have to solemnise marriages in about 50 villages around Louth. Now, if the name of one minister has under the proviso to be attached to one chapel it will cause almost insuperable difficulties to these religious denominations, and make the Bill absolutely useless to the great Methodist churches. I will confine my remarks to the Wesleyans, who have an official list authorised by the conference containing the names of about 1,700 ministers who are under the jurisdiction of the conference. What we suggest is that we should each year send to the Registrar General a copy of the official list of ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and all that the Registrar General would have to do would be to turn to the alphabetical list and see whether the name was there. If this clause means that one minister must be attached to one chapel it is absolutely useless to the great body of the Methodist churches of this country. We might just as well have no Bill at all as have a proviso that one minister, and one only, is to be licensed for one particular chapel. If, however, it is deemed sufficient that the governing body should notify a list of ministers from time to time who were certified to celebrate marriages in the chapels, no difficulty or danger would arise, either as regards the solemnisation or the due recording of the marriage. If the Attorney General is of opinion that such a list would suffice I am quite willing to accept the clause.

* MR. GEDGE (Walsall)

It seems to me very clear that all that will be necessary will be to certify that Mr. A. or Mr. B. or Mr. C, as the case may be, is the proper person to perform the ceremony of marriage in a particular chapel. When this Bill had been read a second time, I proposed to the honourable Gentleman who has charge of it to confer with him upon the Amendments which I thought necessary, but he refused. I saw in my own constituency some 20 gentlemen—clergymen and laymen belonging to at least six or seven of the Nonconformist denominations— and they, I think, with one exception—that of a very eccentric gentleman—were in favour of certain Amendments which I have drawn to meet their views. I put them on the Paper two days ago. Wesleyan Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists, all thought that the governing bodies ought to be defined in some way or other, and they thought that the definitions in the Bill of 1856 would suit them down to the ground. I do not know that the Attorney General intends to do anything of that kind. It requires a very careful definition. In considering this Bill we shall go wrong if we only take the case of the very important Nonconformist denominations. There would be no difficulty whatever about the matter if there were only Wesleyans and Baptists, and so on. But there is a large number of Nonconformist bodies, increasing year after year, which have no such organisation as those important bodies, and it is for them that we have also to provide.

MR. OLDROYD (Dewsbury)

I should like to say one word on this Amendment, as it affects the Congregational body, and the same remarks would apply to the Methodist body, though I have no authority to speak on their behalf. So far as the Congregationalists are concerned, the clause of the Attorney General would work very well, and would be perfectly satisfactory. We have in our denomination a considerable number of chapels, attached to which there is no resident minister, but all these chapels are connected with other larger chapels. In each of these churches or chapels there is a governing body. That is the body of trustees, more especially of church members, who have in their hands the control of these places of worship in all respects, both structurally and, I may say, spiritually. I take it that the clause of the Attorney General would work in this way, that the governing body at each of these chapels would give authority to some person to solemnise marriage. That person so authorised would be authorised for more than one place. It seems to me that the clause of the Attorney General would work admirably well so far as the Congregational body is concerned, and I may say also that the Baptist body would be satisfied with the proviso in the clause as it now stands.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea)

I should like to explain the general structure of the Congregational and Baptist churches, and say that the trust died of a chapel simply vests in the trustees the estate in the site of the chapel, the cèstuis que trustentbeing the members of the congregation. Assuming that the governing body means the members of the church, how is it proposed to be done? Must all the members of the church sign, or the trustees, or is it intended that the governing body may certify by calling in the ordinary way a church meeting, and then, by resolution, certifying the minister who is authorised to solemnise the marriage? If that is so, these words would cover the case. Apart from the question whether there is any practical difficulty in the use of these words, my own opinion is that this arrangement would work admirably with regard to these particular bodies.

MR. ATKINSON:

Several important questions have been raised, which it would be convenient if I dealt with at once before the discussion goes any further. I never imagined that anyone would read the first paragraph of any Amendment as meaning that "no person" would mean "one person" for one chapel, or only one person for not more than one chapel. Apart from anything which follows, it is perfectly competent to have two or three clergymen authorised for one chapel or church, and it is perfectly competent for A or B to be authorised to solemnise marriages at three, four, five, or six churches. The discussion which has taken place satisfies me that my proviso goes too far as it stands. That is an important point. The honourable Member for Lincolnshire asks me to assent to a system under which anyone in a list of 1,700 ministers, authorised all over the United Kingdom —at any rate, he said in England and Wales—is to be authorised to solemnise marriages in an individual chapel. Now that is going much too far. In that he is asking for a much greater privilege than the Church of England now enjoys, because, although sometimes the casual clergyman is brought in by friends to perform the marriage ceremony in the Church of England, he is not really the responsible person, because the respon- sibility rests with the clergyman attached to the building, who has to see that the marriage is duly registered and entered. Therefore you have to go to the church and get a copy of the marriage lines, and not to the person who performed the ceremony. Therefore, I cannot assent to the proposal of the honourable Member, The honourable Member charged me with suggesting one minister for one chapel, and his other alternative was would I accept the authorised list of 1,700 ministers as being a sufficient identification of the ministers authorised to solemnise marriages at chapels. Now, I do not think that honourable Members will consider that I ought to do so. Now, I am very much surprised that the powers given to ministers in the Wesleyan churches are so large. I can understand that when anybody is down to preach he cannot do so unless he is on the list, and there is no difficulty. We know the Wesleyan churches very well, for they are familiar in the country villages, and there always is a Wesleyan minister residing in each district. What I should have conceived and imagined the Wesleyan body would wish to do is, not that a minister in Cornwall should be the registrar of a marriage in Norfolk, but that in regard to the marriage in Norfolk, it should be done by somebody connected with the district and connected with the chapel, who will be responsible for the registration, just as the Church of England minister is responsible. The working out of this question, of course, must be done to a certain extent by rules. I should imagine that the great Wesleyan body, having this Bill before them, would have immediately said that there should he so many ministers authorised in connection with each of the Wesleyan chapels. It would be an absolutely unworkable scheme, which I cannot myself sanction, that the mere fact of Wesleyan ordination and recognition as preacher would be sufficient, and something further must be done to attach the responsibility to the minister who is personally connected with the chapel. The honourable Member has stated perfectly frankly the working of the clause. Either the trustees or the governing bodies themselves will nominate the minister for the time being, either permanently or as long as the minister is connected with that particular chapel, and they will nominate him for the purpose of solemnising marriages. With reference to the point put to me, that some rule would apply, I do not know that it is necessary in the Bill to lay down exactly how the authority of the governing bodies or the trustee is to be exercised, but that will be subject to rules. What we wish is that, in order to register the marriages properly, there must be some person authorised by the representative governing body of the chapel or church, who will be the responsible person, and whose duty it will be to see that the marriages are properly registered.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

The Attorney General, I am sure, will pardon me when I say that he is rather incorrect in his apprehension of what the Wesleyan system is with reference to the appointment of their ministers, for their whole territorial distinction is not unlike the Church of England, and what is equivalent to the parish is almost the same. There is to every circuit two ministers, sometimes three and sometimes four, and I have known five, to the authorisation of whom my honourable Friend behind me referred when he mentioned the 1,700 ministers. Now, I want the right honourable Gentleman to understand exactly what our position is. A certain number of ministers are authorised to perform acts of religious worship in the chapels of that particular town. We have there no equivalent body to the trustees or governing body as far as the appointment of the minister is concerned. The trustees do not appoint the minister who occupies the pulpit, for he is appointed by one central organisation which this year may appoint a man in Cornwall, and next year he may be in Northumberland. A Congregational minister may be appointed for one, 10, 20, 40, or 50 years, but every Wesleyan minister is reappointed every August, and they are appointed for 12 months. There is an official document signed, and, it is not only in writing, but it is printed, by which the minister's appointment is evidenced, and all that my honourable Friend behind me asks is that that document shall be received as evidence of the appointment in Wolverhampton, for instance, or in Louth. He does not want the minister at Louth, Wolverhampton, or Norwich to have a document showing that he is appointed all over the Kingdom. All he wants to have is the official document of the man appointed by that specific town, or within that, specific superintendent registrar's area. I assure the Attorney General that this is a question of evidence, and that is why I suggest that it should be done by rule, and that the Registrar General, with the approval of the Local Government Board, should make rules to certify what evidence is to be tendered and what will be received to satisfy him for a person to authorise marriages. Let us look at one sentence in his own Amendment. It reads— No person shall officiate at or solemnise a marriage in any registered building under this Act unless he has been certified as having been duly authorised fur the purpose by the trustees or other governing body of the building. Wesleyans are like other people, and they may have a friend who is a minister in Cornwall whom they may wish to perform the marriage ceremony of their daughter. Just as an outside clergyman of the Church of England may perform the marriage of a friend, that custom prevails in Nonconformist circles, and, although the Attorney General is quite right when he says that no marriage can take place in the church without the consent of the rector or incumbent, he knows that scores and hundreds of marriages take place without the clergyman of the parish being present at all. I agree personally with the section which reads— Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building. That means that the Bill authorises a certain person to perform a marriage in Leeds, and it will also allow him to perform a marriage at Birmingham if it is required. So far as the wording of this clause is concerned, my honourable Friend behind me, and my two honourable Friends who have spoken on behalf of the body with which the difficulty is the greatest, are satisfied; and I think the difficulty is one which can be settled hereafter by rule, which, I think, is the most satisfactory way of doing it. I should, therefore, advise my honourable Friend behind me to accept the Amendment as the Attorney General has put it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I do not wish in the least to prevent a minister from a Wesleyan body solemnising a marriage in any chapel in the same way in which a clergyman of the Church of England is allowed to perform the marriage ceremony; but, if that is done, we shall have to have the presence of the minister of the chapel, or one of the ministers authorised to solemnise marriages in that chapel. It is the common practice that if one of the clergymen of the Church of England from another district performs the marriage ceremony, one of the clergymen connected with the district in which the marriage takes place is present, and I should have thought it would have been a very reasonable solution of the difficulty that one of the registrars in connection with that building should be present. I had that in my mind when I said that it was not quite sufficient. What I want to point out is this, that I am not quite sure that it will be sufficient for the officials to have simply the annual evidence of the ministers authorised at particular churches and chapels in the list of the Wesleyan Conference, because, of course, under the machinery of the Bill, we have got to send books and registers, and they have to be returned, and we must, of course, know the person who is to be responsible to us to see that they are returned. I do not think, therefore, that I am asking too much when I say that the governing bodies or trustees of these chapels, or each church or circle, should send year by year a list of the persons taken from the list of the central authority indicating that they are duly authorised persons. I agree that this is a matter that might be carried out by rules, but while I agree with that, I think that what we all desire is that there shall be a responsible governing body, or a responsible person, who shall tell us who are the authorised ministers. I think it would be putting too much work on the central body to pick out the names, and there would be no objection to a responsible party in the district informing those persons who are recoginsed ministers for this particular building. As I have been obliged to answer— and wish to answer—the point put by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, I may say that I think it is clear that my clause will require some little amendment, but I am doubtful whether I can do it now. I think this proviso goes a little too far, for, although it remedies one grievance, there are other matters which will require safeguarding, and there ought to be a minister present connected with the chapel. If the honourable Member could suggest something, we might be able to pass it today.

* MR. GEDGE (Walsall)

I do not think this clause would require alteration if we really meant to have only gentlemen to solemnise marriages who have solemnly taken holy orders, but as we are now dealing practically with anybody who may have sufficient influence to be authorised for that purpose, I think we ought to take every reasonable precaution to secure the right conduct of the ceremony, and the preservation of the certificates.

* MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

I think it is only in a. few isolated cases that Nonconformists desire the laity to perform their marriages. The number is not one in 10,000, and we need hardly provide for a case of that sort. Perhaps the case would be met if the minister in the locality attended the wedding in cases where the marriage was performed by a clergyman coming from a distant part.

MR. OLDROYD

I think the case of the person authorised for any particular place of worship being present, in addition to the officiating stranger, would constitute an insuperable difficulty. The minister who is, registered in connection with the specific chapel may be away on his holidays, or detained at home by ill health, and his attendance would consequently be impossible; consequently the party solemnising the marriage would have to go to some chapel where the minister was not ill or away and for the time being that chapel would be practically closed as a place for solemnising marriages.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

What I have said is only proving what you say.

MR. OLDROYD

That is one of the difficulties which a revision of this proviso might raise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I, Sir, do not think it is contemplated that there will be more than one minister or more than one person authorised for ordinary chapels. If tins concession is given, it is not asking very much that he should be present. At any rate, in order that we may get on, I will suggest some words, and I will move them, and if they are not satisfactory I will reconsider the matter on the Report stage.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER

I do not think this would be the general rule in Congregational chapels, where there are not two ministers. The Attorney General says it would be very wrong to allow a stranger to come and perform the ceremony without the consent of the minister duly authorised. Now, that is impossible in a Wesleyan chapel for nobody can perform any act of religious worship without the consent of local senior minister. Therefore, if you have the consent of the minister on the spot, you get what you require. I can fully appreciate the Attorney General's objection. I think it ought to be met, and if he will allow me to say so, he had better let this clause go as it stands, and let there, be some consultation between himself and the promoters to amend it, so that all these points may be met. What I did mean when I addressed the House before was just what the Attorney General said—that the local authority should furnish the local superintendent registrar with the names only of two or three ministers who are appointed to officiate in that chapel, and all we want to do is to make it easy for the man authorised to perform a marriage in one part of the country to, with the consent of the local minister, perform a marriage in another place. At Congregational chapels in some small district there might not be a minister within 20 or 30 miles, and it would be exceedingly hard upon the members of that denomination to say that they must wait till the minister comes from his holidays, or recovers from his illness, before they can get married. That is the question before us, and perhaps the last proviso in the Amendment had better be added to the Bill.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I think the real difficulty is with those smaller bodies, which are very much scattered about country districts, and it has been suggested that there should be someone properly responsible in the locality. It is very likely that the suggestion which the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has made will answer very well in the cases he has mentioned.

MR. BRIGG (Yorks., W.R., Keighley)

I should like to press upon the Committee that on the lines laid down there is a distinct difference between the Free Churches. There is much less difficulty in a certain number of men performing marriages in the same circuit, and they are much better regulated. There may be, even in the same town, different organisations, and I would suggest that in these cases, if the consent should be given of the man who is in charge of that place of worship, another minister should perform the ceremony. I quite conceive the line which the right honourable Gentleman has taken up, and it is a very safe line for the Free Churches generally. But, inasmuch as they include Presbyterians and all shades of Free Churches, it would be difficult to do that, and I quite acknowledge the necessity for his attempt to meet the difficulty by authorising other persons, if the consent of the person, whoever it may be, is obtained who has the right from the proper authority in that particular building to solemnise marriages.

Amendment agreed to without a Division.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

As I have already indicated to the Committee, I cannot move the proviso in the actual words on the Paper, as the right honourable Gentleman opposite has an addition which he will read to the House. The words, as they stand at present, are— Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building.

SIR H. H. FOWLER

It is quite evident we want elasticity in these questions, as rules may apply to ministers of one denomination and not to another. That will require the careful consideration of the Local Government Board. Therefore I move to insert after "may", the following words— In accordance with, and subject to, such conditions as may be prescribed by rules to be made under this Act.

Question put.

Agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE

I propose to add at the end of the clause the words, "'belonging to the same religious denomination." It seems to me there may be an interchange of courtesies between ministers of different denominations, and the time may come when clergymen may preach in Congregational or Wesleyan chapels; but I do not suppose that a clergyman, would perform the marriage ceremony in a. Wesleyan chapel, or a Wesleyan in a Congregational or Independent chapel. The one idea of the Bill is to remove. Nonconformist ministers from being in an inferior position to the clergy of the Church of England so far as conducting the marriage ceremony is concerned. No clergyman can perform the marriage ceremony except in a Church of England church, and it certainly seems only natural and reasonable, considering that there are such a number of denominations, each with its own ministers authorised only by the governing body of the chapel, that the power which Parliament gives should be limited to the buildings belonging to each particular denomination. We are not merely dealing with great religious bodies such as the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, and so forth, but we are also dealing with very small Nonconformist bodies which may come into existence one week and expire the following year. But there is nothing to hinder any body of people calling themselves a Nonconformist body, and not lasting more than two or three years, and whose governing body may be a few humble people in an obscure village—in fact, a denomination never heard of before—from availing themselves of this Act. A small Nonconformist sect may break away from another sect, and may start a denomination of its own, and have one little chapel, the governing body of which has it registered, and they may nominate a person—a layman if they please—to perform the marriage ceremony. I may be answered by the fact that these are small bodies, that they are insignificant, but you are giving them rights over the whole. They should be limited to the denomination to which they belong, and they should not receive from Parliament power to perform the marriage ceremony in any registered chapel in England, whether it belongs to their own religious denomination or not. I beg to move to add at the end the words "belonging to the same religious denomination."

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

I am happy to say that Nonconformist bodies do not differentiate among themselves as the honourable Member imagines. I think it would be highly objectionable if, for instance, a Congregational minister were not allowed to perform the marriage ceremony in a Wesleyan chapel. It is altogether foreign to Nonconformist feeling and Nonconformist practice, and I do not think it requires further argument.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Of course, in one sense this is a matter which may possibly be dealt with by rule. I have no feeling in the matter, and it is for the Nonconformist representatives to say whether it should be possible for a minister of one denomination to perform the marriage ceremony in the church or chapel of another denomination. I will ask my honourable Friend not to move.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put:— Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may, in accordance with, and subject to, such conditions as may be prescribed by rules to be made under this Act, officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building.

Agreed to.

Question put— That, clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill

Agreed to.

Forward to