ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.

HL Deb 16 June 1820 vol 1 cc1099-102

Lord Holland

rose to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Royal Marriage act. It being the unquestionable privilege of a peer to introduce a bill without asking leave, and it being so much the practice of the House to have a bill read a first time on its being presented, that any objection to such a course was not to be expected, he intended to move the first reading of the bill which he now offered to the consideration of their lordships. These circumstances rendered it unnecessary for him to make any observations in support of the measure in its present stage. As, however, some misrepresentation of his intentions had gone abroad, he should say a few words on the object of the bill, which indeed was easily described, as it was simply the repeal of an act of parliament. The statute which he proposed to abrogate was that of the 12th of the late king, commonly called the Royal Marriage act. That statute provided for previous communications to parliament on intended marriages; it states, that as those marriages are of great importance, it is necessary they should be regulated; and it goes on to enact, that the descendants of George 2nd should not marry without the consent of the reigning king; and that in future no marriages of any members of the royal family should be legal without the consent of the sovereign. It is, however, provided, that if a member of the royal family, having attained the age of 25, shall wish to enter into a marriage which is disapproved by the king, the case may be laid before the privy council; and if, after the expiration of one year, parliament does not interfere, the marriage shall be legal. Penalties were imposed by the act, and all persons assisting or present at such marriages were made subject to premunire. What might be urged in support of the repeal, or stated in reply to objections to which it might be thought liable, had better be deferred to another period. He might, however, be now permitted to allude to what had taken place on the enactment of this law. From the accounts of what had been done when the measure was before parliament, it appeared that it had passed through that House with great rapidity. In the other House, the bill was warmly debated, and gave rise to many divisions, but it was not printed in its progress through parliament. It had been said of it by one who observed the transactions of the times, that it had passed after more having been said against It, and less for it, than any measure that, ever came before parliament. It was not this circumstance, however, which induced him to propose the repeal of the act. He wished to remove it from the Statute-book, because be considered it a direct invasion of a natural right—a law hostile to morality, and calculated to promote not only foreign, but also civil wars. Besides these evils, it had, in his opinion, a tendency to render the marriages of the descendants of George 2nd unhappy marriages. It was not his intention to enter into any detailed consideration of these topics at present; but he had no hesitation in saying, that the last had more weight with him than those that preceded it in the order in which he had stated them, and that in any future discussion he should be induced to dwell more on it than on any of the other objections which he had to the act. This, however, was not the time in which he should choose to insist on this point. The same reason, perhaps, which had induced the noble earl opposite to be silent on the topics connected with the motion he had just made, induced him also to wave for the present the enforcement of this part of his argument. He wished, however, not to be misunderstood, and would therefore add one or two words to what he had already said on the view he entertained of the subject. Were he to succeed in proving, to the satisfaction of their lordships, that the tendency of the act was to render the marriages made under it unhappy, that surely might be an inducement to take royal marriages out of the predicament of ordinary marriages, and to place the application of the law to them on different principles—on principles which would give greater facility to their dissolution than in ordinary cases. As the object of the act was merely political, their lordships would be the more inclined to grant this relief, which would of course be applicable only to those on whom the effects of the existing law operated, it had been his intention to bring forward this measure in the course of the present session, but the circumstances which at present existed had hastened the execution of his design. If their lordships adopted the principle he had laid down, any future measure would be facilitated; for it would not be a sufficient objection to say, that the act was in force at the time the marriage was contracted, since the tendency of the act being admitted, it would follow that relief should be granted. In consequence of the misunderstanding which had prevailed respecting his notice, and to prevent its continuance, he had thought it necessary to say these few words; and he should now only move, that the bill be read a first time, intending, with the leave of the House, to have it printed, and to let it be for some time on the table before he should propose the second reading.

The Earl of Liverpool

admitted that it was usual to allow a bill presented by a noble lord to be read a first time, but the noble lord was in error if he conceived this to be a matter of right. It certainly was the practice of the House to let a bill pass through the first reading unless it contained something so palpably gross as to render it inadmissible. He certainly did not mean to oppose the present motion; but at the same time he thought it necessary to observe, that he had the most decided objection to the principle of the measure proposed by the noble lord, and that he would at the proper time 6tatelhe grounds of his objection.

Lord Holland

in explanation, observed, that he had not demanded their lordships' assent to the first reading as a matter of right, but had stated that to permit a bill to pass through that stage was so much the usage of the House, that any noble lord to whom the same indulgence was refused would have reason to consider himself hardly dealt with.

The bill was then read a first time.