§ The Bishop of Exeter moved the second reading of the bill for rendering valid Marriages which had been solemnized in certain churches and chapels, without a publication of the banns.
The Lord Chancellorcould not omit this occasion of expressing his regret at the frequent introduction of bills of this description.
The Bishop of Exeteracquiesced in the justness of the noble and learned lord's observation, and hoped that the introduction of such bills would cease.
The Earl of Lauderdaleconsidered the bill as of very great importance, inasmuch as it shewed the numerous inconveniences that arose from the Marriage Act. As the noble and learned lord seemed resolved to turn his attention to these inconveniencies, he would perhaps discover how far it might be expedient to repeal the Marriage Act, or so far to new model its provisions as to 415 prevent the necessity of such frequent suspensions of it.
Lord Hollandconcurred in this opinion. He wished even the legislature would take a more wide and liberal view of the Marriage Act, and some other acts, such as the Corporation and Test Acts, which proved such hardships to so many large descriptions of his majesty's subjects. Surely that act could not be practically wise and useful which justified a recurrence to so many suspensions of it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid he must have been grossly mis-understood, if it was supposed he could entertain any intention of moving the repeal of any of these acts; on the contrary an occasion was likely soon to occur when he should declare his opinion of the necessity of retaining them.
§ Lord Redesdalewould never sit silent and hear the declarations that were made by some noble lords. As he deeply and sincerely revered the Marriage Act, and as he felt the great importance of a strict observance of it, so should he always be ready to raise his voice against the opinion of those to whom nothing in the constitution appeared sacred, and who avowed the design of proposing the repeal of the Marriage Act, and other acts equally essential to The safety of the state, and to the well being and peace of the community. Those who harboured such designs, could not mean well to their country.
§ Earl Stanhopecalled to order. He felt much respect for the noble and learned lord, but he never would allow him or any noble lord to impute motives to noble lords as influencing the opinions they delivered in that house.
§ Lord Redesdaledid not conceive himself to be disorderly. He did not think that any noble lord without moving for the repeal of an act of the legislature had a right to enter into arguments that treated it with disrespect.
The Earl of Lauderdalecalled the noble and learned lord to order, and reprobated the narrowness and illiberality of his opinions, which were now held odious in every part of the country, and which he was certain would prove as mischievous as they were odious.
§ Lord Ellenboroughcontended that his noble and learned friend was strictly in order, and that his observations grew out of the bill before the house.
§ Lord Redesdalethen went on, and contended that he did not conceive he had made any unparliamentary remarks: on 416 the contrary, he thought this had been done by the two noble lords who had introduced a subject that was not before the house, he was more and more convinced of the necessity of the act, in serving as a barrier to confusion in the order of succession to property, and that we should not follow the example of a neighbouring country, whose laxity in that respect was of a pernicious tendency.
The Earl of Lauderdaleconceived the noble lord as most illiberal in his observations on this and other discussions of a like nature, and was convinced there was not one noble lord within the four corners of the house, who did not think so.
Lord Holland, considered the language used by the noble lord as most unparliamentary, and tending to prevent the freedom of debate. The question had been naturally introduced by the motion for reading the bill, which proposed an indemnity to persons who had offended against the Marriage act. Besides, he protested against the doctrine that no law was to be amended, nor any new one introduced, without subjecting the person so introducing the measure to the imputation of acting with evil designs against the constitution. If such doctrine was once introduced, the liberty of speech would be destroyed, and some noble lords would perhaps be intimidated from doing their duty.—The bill was then read a second time.