Lords Sitting of 12 June 1823

DISSENTERS MARRIAGES BILL.
On the order of the day, for the second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdownstated, that the purport of the bill was, to relieve Protestant Dissenters and Catholics from the situation in which they were placed by the former marriage act, which compelled them, in opposition to the scruples of their conscience, to one act of conformity with the doctrines of the established church. It had been admitted by men of all parties that they were entitled to some relief, and that some means should
968
be found to rescue them from the necessity of violating their own religious feelings, or of abstaining from contracting a tie important to their own happiness as well as to the welfare of society. The petitions which had been laid before their lordships, and the communications that had been made by bodies of Dissenters to the noble earl opposite, were alone sufficient to establish their Case. To some of them, the higher and more en lightened Roman Catholics, the present state of the law was not particularly objectionable; but with the lower classes of Catholics the objection was insurmountable. The result was, that rather than perform such an act of conformity, they preferred contracting marriages legally invalid. Hence arose the petition of the churchwardens and overseers of one of the most populous parishes in the metropolis, who prayed that Roman Catholics might be allowed to solemnize marriages in their own churches, and according to their own rites; as, in consequence of the present practice, their parish was crowded with legitimate children. The bill now before the House would extend to Catholics and Dissenters the facilities granted to Jews and Quakers by lord Hardwicke's Act; but with such regulations as were necessary to give security to property and to all the relations which marriage created. The religious ceremony would be left to be regulated by themselves according to their particular tenets. All that was asked was, that after having gone through the forms required by law, and having paid the fees due to the established church, Dissenters should be allowed to marry in their own churches, and that their marriages should be regularly registered, under the inspection of the clergymen of the parish in which they re sided. He was far from thinking the bill perfect, and objected in particular to the clause which provided that marriages: might be solemnized in any licenced place. He thought that marriage should I only be celebrated in chapels consecrated to divine service. All the objectionable, provisions, however, might be removed un the committee.
The Lord Chancellorregretted that he was obliged to oppose the motion of the noble lord. But, the very view which the noble lord himself took of it justified him in calling on their lordships not to make so great an alteration as' the bill contemplated, at so late a period of the

969
session. The bill was marked by a generality of provisions, which showed the impossibility of carrying it into effect. Although a firm friend to the Church of England, he thought he might say, that he took as just a view of toleration as any noble lord in that House could do: but he could not go the length to which this bill pointed. For by it, where a marriage took place between a Catholic and a Protestant, the Protestant was left entirely-out of the question. The marriage must be by the Roman Catholic form, and no provision was made for satisfying the scruples of the Protestant. The bill was founded, it was said, on a tenderness for the religious principles of particular sects: but, if those principles led men to deny Christianity, were they to lend themselves to an extended toleration of that sort? To what would this bill go? It would enable persons to open a place for the celebration of marriage in every town and village throughout England; and that, not for individuals whose religious tenets were known; but it would introduce the followers of Joanna Southcot, together with ranters, jumpers, and various other sects, of whose principles they knew nothing. It went even further; for it gave protection to all those religious opinions which might hereafter be promulgated. The bill, it might be said, could be amended: but he pressed on their lordships to consider, whether they could, with propriety, at that period of the session, set about amending a bill, having for its object such mighty changes in the law of marriage. It would be much wiser to give this bill up, and to have another measure introduced early in the next session.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he must give the bill, as it now stood, his decided negative; because it contained provisions to which he never could accede. The object of the bill he, however, admitted to be necessary and expedient, to a certain extent. He, therefore, differed from his learned friend, who wished the measure to be withdrawn altogether. Even at that late period of the session, it might be sent to a committee, to inquire whether a part of it might not be retained, if the object could not be effected by some other mode; and certainly the present measure did not appear to him to be the most advisable mode. The argument for the principle of the bill was unanswerable after we had recognized that principle in the case of the Jews and Quakers.
970
There were parts of the marriage ceremony which certain sects could not conscientiously agree to and to those persons, "We will either force to go through that ceremony, or we will prevent you from entering into that state of life which is necessary for your happiness, and for the preservation of your virtue could not be maintained to be a just doctrine. He would not, however, grant relief by a measure which, like the present, was accompanied by all the. inconveniences described by his learned friend, as well as by many others which he had not pointed out. He thought no difficulty could arise with respect to, Roman Catholics, who might be put on the same footing as the Quakers, and Jews; but as to Dissenters, a certain portion of the service might be omitted, if the church did not object to it. There was one provision of the bill which compelled the parties, not only where both were dissenters, but where either was a Dissenter, I to be united according to the dissenting forms. Here was A, a member of the Church of England, and B, a dissenter, about to be united. Now, was it unreasonable that the conscience of each should be satisfied, by having the ceremony performed according to the rites of the two churches? But, if the bill were passed as it stood at present, they might be married in any church, as dissenters, but A. could not have the rites of her own church. This was a principle so objectionable, that it could not stand. It would be a legislation against the church establishment. Another point of great importance was, that the parties should be bonâ fide, and not nominal, Dissenters. Again, the provision, with respect to the chapel or place where marriages might be solemnized, called for revision. Under the present bill, marriages might be contracted in every alehouse. He would not, however, oppose the second reading. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he had heard with considerable alarm. the suggestion of the noble earl, with respect to the marriage service. It was, he believed, the first proposition even made in that House to 8.her die liturgy of the established church. And for what purpose? For the purpose of accommodating those who were not of the Church of England—to, accommodate sects who founded their faith and religious belief on private and unlearned interpretations of the Scriptures. No man had a greater

971
respect for toleration than lie bad. But the extent to which it should be allowed, was the business of the legislature, and not of the church. He knew of no other just limitation to toleration than that which was laid down by the legislature. The present bill went beyond the point to which it should go; namely, that of giving relief to scruples of conscience. Under proper regulations, such relief might be given; but the present bill went further, and interfered with matters of discipline.
The Bishop of Worcesteradmitted that the bill was imperfect; but, with all its imperfections it might be sent to a committee, if it were only to show that the subject was deemed worthy of serious consideration. He conceived that some relief might be given; but what, he would not take upon himself to say. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl, he had only thrown out a suggestion as to the marriage service; observing at the time, that it could not be carried into effect without the concurrence of the church, and even then he had only spoken of omitting certain parts of the service in solemnizing the marriage of Dissenters.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the bill, both in principle and in detail. It would have the effect of converting the licenced meeting-houses of Dissenters into so many Gretna-greens. As the bill now stood, two individuals, not Dissenters, but members of the the Church of England, mightget married under its provisions.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that, much as he desired to give relief to the Dissenters, he could not consent to give it to the extent proposed by the bill. He thought that by going into the committee a more unexceptionable bill might be produced next session.
The Bishop of Chesterobjected to the bill, because it affected the discipline of the church and the interests of the clergy. He thought that time ought to be given to the clergy to present petitions to the House, if they should think it necessary to do so.
Lord Calthorpethought, that sufficient bad been stated to induce their lordships to go into a committee on the bill. He looked to the agitation of the subject without the smallest apprehension; because, the more the just rights and privileges of the Church, of England became the subject of consideration in Parliament, the more would that church recommend
972
itself to the respect and affection of the country at large. Neither the interests of religion, nor of the church, called on them to force individuals to an apparent acquiescence in opinions which, in their view, were repugnant to reason, and unauthorized by Scripture. For this reason, he wished the bill to be sent to a committee. He by no means pledged himself to support all its provisions; but it met with his qualified approbation.
The Bishop of Landaffthought, that, before the legislature consented to such a bill as this, they ought to be satisfied who were the persons by whom, and under what forms, the marriages were to be solemnized. Excepting the Jews, the Catholics, and the Quakers, no Dissenters had any peculiar marriage service of their own. Was it not doubtful whether they would admit the service which the legislature might impose on them? The moral and religious interests of the community would not be safe, if such a latitude were permitted as this bill tended to allow. He admitted that it was a question well deserving consideration; but it was one which could not be decided off-hand. He wished it to be withdrawn for the present.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the real object of the bill was, to relieve religious scruples, and nothing else. The right rev. prelate had asserted, that the moral and religious interests of the community would not be safe under the provisions of this bill. Now, lie thought those interests were not much advanced by forcing persons, in despite of their religious scruples, to an occasional conformity. The right rev. prelate admitted that the subject demanded consideration. Why, then, not go into a committee, and see whether the bill could not be rendered satisfactory? With respect to the alteration of the liturgy, he doubted whether it could be effected, so as to include all Dissenters, without doing that to which he had a most serious objection; namely, converting marriage into a mere civil ceremony. There were few things which gave him more pain than to see the right rev. bench always indisposed to give relief to tender consciences. What was required of the legislature by this bill was but little; what the legislature at present required of the Dissenters was a very grievous obligation.
The Earl of Carnarvonwas anxious that the bill should go to a committee.

973
It might there appear advisable to postpone the decision oft the measure. By adopting the course recommended, their lordships would next session be better prepared to go into the discussion of this important question.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that bad it not been from the apprehension that an insurmountable objection would be found to exist to such a proposition, it would have been proposed to substitute another form of marriage in the liturgy. He had introduced the measure, although late in the session, that it might receive as much consideration as possible, with no wish, however, to press it to a complete adoption. On the contrary, it was desirable that therecess should be allowed for the purpose of further digesting the bill. At the same time, however, he could not conceal the disappointment which he felt at the objections which had been made even to going into a committee on the bill, in order to see if the existing evil might not be remedied.
Their lordships divided: For the second reading, Contents 15; Proxies6–21 Not contents 15; Proxies12–27. Majority against the second reading, 6.