Lords Sitting of 1 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Lighthouses; Richmond Penitentiary (Ireland); Ottoman Dominions Consuls. —Read a second time:—Stamp Duties on Newspapers.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON from Saxmundham, for the Protection of the Protestant Religion, and together with Lord LYNDHURST, from various Places, against Imprisonment for Debt Bill; and from Shiffnal and the adjoining Parishes, against Marriages' Bill.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Meath, for the Protection of the Established Church (Ireland); and from Portsmouth, for Oyster Fisheries' Bill.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Blaxhall, and from St. Helen's, Isle of Wight, for Repeal and Amendment of Poor-Law Amendment Act; and from the last named Place, against the uniting of Parishes.—By the Marquess of BUTS, from Glenelg, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord DUNCANNON, from Kingston-upon-Thames, for Marriages and Registration of Births' Bills, and for Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Earl of CALEDON, from the Members of the Grand Panel, Armagh, against Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved the third reading of the Parochial Rates Bill.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished the noble Duke would not press the measure through its final stage this evening, because he was desirous of moving another clause to the Bill.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he would not.
Lord Hathertonthought, that the Bill would prove beneficial to the country, as it would equalise the county rates, and make every parish pay in a just proportion.
The Earl of Liverpoolwould only say, that he considered the Bill unnecessary.
Lord Dacresaid, that he thought the proviso at the end of the first clause in the Bill ought to be omitted, and he accordingly moved it be expunged.
The Duke of Richmonddefended the Bill, and said he believed there was no ground for the apprehension which some noble Lords appeared to entertain.
Bill read a third time, but further proceedings on the measure were adjourned.

RAILROADS (IRELAND)
The Order of the Day was read on the notice given by the Marquess of Lansdowne, "To move an Address to his Majesty to appoint proper persons to inquire and report upon the most advantageous lines of railways in Ireland." The noble Marquess then said, he was about to propose to their Lordships a brief statement upon which he founded his motion, which was, that competent persons

687
should be appointed to report generally what were the principal lines with respect to the carrying on of railroads in Ireland, as to the greatest facility of execution. This was the first object of the motion; and the second was, that after such report had been made by the competent parties so appointed to investigate, that his Majesty should be authorised to direct the Board of Works in that country to make a general survey of those railways, so that this would give an additional security as to the facility of execution. It would have been very desirable if such a step had been taken with respect to England; inasmuch as it would have spared much expense to parties and much time to both branches of the Legislature, as well as much imperfect legislation. It was, perhaps, too late to apply any such investigation as regarded England. Having said this, he would add he was ready to admit that the utility of such an inquiry was much less, as far as England was concerned, than it would be in Ireland. In England railroads were chiefly taken up in their original form in commercial towns, among great manufacturing interests, and where there were large masses of population. Those lines were carried from one large town to another, and other lines branched from them to neighbouring towns of less importance, through the districts in which the longer or continuous lines ran. These partial or local communications had also their great advantages. But in Ireland matters were quite different; for such interests did not exist to the same extent, and the virgin soil was still untouched by any great line of railroad. He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that such a motion as that which he had the honour of submitting was desirable. But although this aid was afforded, he must protest against its being considered as pledging the Government to any thing further, or inducing persons to engage in any speculations; for although, as he had stated, it would be very useful to have persons well qualified to execute the task of investigating into the best lines of railroads, still individuals themselves living upon the spot, in the exercise of prudence, must have the best means of knowing whether the supply and demand, would render it probable that such undertakings were likely to prove beneficial or otherwise. Before parties took shares in such projects it behoved them to exercise a deliberate judgment. He was anxious to guard himself against being
688
understood as throwing out any expectation whatever of aid on the part of Government, the more especially as in that part of the kingdom, any recommendation having the sanction of the Government, was too often interpreted in a different sense than the one intended, and he begged to be understood as stating, that beyond this, the Government would not go, and the railroad undertakings must depend upon the public assistance. The assistance given by the Government would stop there. All that was proposed was, to give the public the benefit of the investigation of the Commissioners, and Government and Parliament were to remain unpledged. He believed, that the inquiry would be attended with this beneficial effect—it would be the means of preventing the conflicting lines and opposition to others adopted, which had taken place to so large an extent in this country. In that point of view, therefore, a great object would be accomplished. It was unnecessary for him to detain their Lordships any longer on the present occasion, as he apprehended no opposition whatever would be made to the motion. The noble Marquess then concluded with moving, that "A humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint competent persons to inquire and report upon the practicability of communications in Ireland with reference to the commercial advantages as to the connection of railroads; and, with a view to ascertain the best lines, that his Majesty be graciously pleased to direct the Board of Works to render such assistance as may be necessary, in the survey of such lines."
The Duke of Leinsterexpressed his sincere thanks for the motion of his noble Friend; and he trusted that their Lordships would at once accede to the motion.
Lord Fitzgeraldbelieved, that the proposition would be received in Ireland with great satisfaction, and it was to be regretted that a similar investigation had not been adopted in England.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES.
The Report of the Marriages Bill was brought up. Several clauses were adopted with amendments.
On Clause 20,
Viscount Melbournerose for the purpose of moving that certain words introduced in the Committee on this Bill on Thursday last should be omitted, and the clause reinstated in its original form. The words in

689
question were in the declaration proposed to be made by the parties at a marriage, and to the following effect:—"I. N. declare, in the presence of Almighty God and before these witnesses, that I take M. to be my lawful wife, to lire with her according to God's holy ordinance; and in the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, I solemnly promise to be to her a loving and faithful husband, and to keep to her during life." In moving the omission of these words, it was not his wish in any way to infringe upon the sanctity of the marriage contract, and if he thought that the alteration which he proposed would have that effect he would not press it. The ground upon which he opposed the introduction of these words was, that he thought, it would be very objectionable, to many parties, to introduce a civil officer into their chapel for the purpose of taking part in the performance of a somewhat religious ceremony.
The House divided on the question that the clause as amended by the Committee, stand part of the Bill.—Contents 29; Not-contents, 72—Majority 43.
Words added in the Committee omitted.
On the 25th Clause,
Lord Plunkettproposed an addition, the effect of which would be, that no marriage should be invalidated on account of the omission of any of the forms prescribed by the Act. In proposing such an addition as this, he adopted the words used in the 3d and 4th of George 4th. He should not have ventured to suggest an alteration of this kind, if he had not before doing so consulted the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack and another noble Friend near him. Both were satisfied that his proposition was in accordance with the spirit of the existing law.
Lord Ellenboroughconsidered a question of such deep importance ought rather to be made the subject of a separate Bill, than introduced as a rider upon the present Bill.
Lord Plunkettremarked, that till now there must either be bans or licence before a marriage was celebrated. This Act introduced a new mode without bans or licence, and that was by certificate—that certificate being guarded by previous circumstances, such as the parties living a certain time in the parish, &c, and they should be married in the presence of a registrar. It would then be monstrous—it would be a trap to innocent persons, if supposing, some of the necessary forms
690
being neglected, the marriage could be defeated. Former acts guarded the issue at the very moment that they punished the parties. A false name might be given by a party, for the purpose of imposing upon an innocent lady. Now, looking to previous provisions, it would be found that when both gave false names, both would be liable to punishment; that though they should forfeit every thing by the marriage, their issue were not to be affected by it. He submitted, that an infinite deal of mischief must follow, if some such provision as that suggested by him were not adopted. What was intended to be got rid of was, the power of declaring marriage null, if a matter of form were not observed.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that when forms were got rid of, the substance soon followed. He had not the least objection to provide for the issue not being affected by the irregularity of the parties.
Lord Ellenboroughmust re-assert what he said fourteen years ago, when the marriage law was discussed in that House. What he said was this, that they ought not to allow the nullity of marriage. He said, that religious obligation was so high, that it was impossible to add anything to it; that they could not detract from the importance of the religious contract, and could set up no human law as powerful as the divine; that it was terrible to call upon parties, in obedience to human laws, to separate, when the laws of God directed them to continue united. Their Lordships then acceded to what he proposed upon this subject. He recollected the late Lord Liverpool, who exclaimed, when alluding to marriages,—"I think, as to the parties who have done wrong, you may hang them if you please, but the marriage shall remain good." He confessed, that on principle he did not dissent from the noble Lord; but he did not consider that the public were as yet prepared for such a fundamental change as the proposed alteration in the Act.
Lord Hollandconsidered, that if they did not agree to the amendment now suggested by his noble and learned Friend, the consequence would be the declaration of nullity of several marriages, on the ground of particular forms prescribed by this Act not being attended to. The nullity of these marriages would create scenes of misery in private families, which it would be impossible to describe. Let them recollect the situation in which such families would be placed; and let them recollect, too, the situation in which they would place

691
Parliament. If they now passed that Act, without some such clause as his noble Friend proposed, if they sanctioned the nullity of marriages, they would in a year or two have to retrace their steps, and declare those persons to be married (whose marriages had been nullified), thus altering the succession to property, and depriving others of their fair rights under the laws of the country. It had been said, and truly said, of all matters of this kind, that laws affecting the nullity of marriages were all laws against religion, virtue, and nature. As he understood the Bill, as it now stood, there could be no question that a neglect of any of the forms would effect a nullity of the marriage. He agreed in thinking, that the punishment could not be too severe upon those who wilfully and knowingly evaded the law, but let not the punishment descend upon their children. If they did not do this, the consequence might be, that a hundred years hence a man would not know what property was his, because an ancestor of his had neglected some miserable form prescribed by this Act. Such a power as that of declaring marriage null on trivial grounds was against the divine law, canon law, and common law, of this country, and the law of Europe. Consent was the only thing, that was the essence of marriage, all the rest was superstructive; they ought, then, to take care that the nullity of marriage was not to extend beyond the parents.
Lord Plunkettobserved, this law created a specific evil, and their ought to be a cure for that evil. If, however, he found the sense of the House was against him, he should not press the amendment.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested to his noble and learned Friend, to have his amendments printed, and propose them on the third reading. The particular forms that he sought to have dispensed with ought to be specified.
Lord Plunkettwould accede to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellorhad imagined that the chief difficulty his noble and learned Friend would have to contend with would be, that, in enumerating the forms, he did not omit any, because the effect might be to invalidate marriages by the omission, which the circumstances of themselves ought not to invalidate. He admitted, however, that it was desirable to determine if possible, what should be considered matters of form, and what otherwise.
Clause postponed.
Lord Ellenboroughsuggested the propriety of striking out the 36th Clause. He thought it very hard to call on a lady to state her age, and if she did not state it correctly to subject her to the penalty of perjury. He had heard of some ladies being so averse to telling their age, that, when applying for Government Annuities, they had persisted in declaring themselves younger than they really were, though they knew that the consequence of their doing so was, that they must pay more.
The Bishop of Herefordsaid, that the only object of the clause was to ascertain whether the party was twenty-one years of age. The purpose would be answered sufficiently if that fact was established, without knowing the precise age.
The words were struck out.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c
The Order of the Day having been moved for the third reading of the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill,
Lord Wynfordsaid, he had to regret having been absent on former occasions when this Bill had been under discussion, and entertaining a serious objection to the principle of the Bill, he could not allow the third reading to pass without troubling their Lordships with a few words, particularly when the true reason for passing the Bill was not stated. The intention of the Bill was, to give the Dissenters a more efficient mode of registration than they at present possessed. To that he had not the least objection; but he did object that the members of the Church of England should have the law altered, and be liable to a considerable increased expense, when they were in possession of a much better mode of registration than that which was proposed to be afforded them by the present Bill. He well recollected what the system of registration was when it was made by the parish clerks, and not by the clergymen. It had been most inaccurate at that period, and would be just as inaccurate under the present Bill. Did their Lordships consider that this system of registration would be better effected by the district registers than it had been by the parish clerks? He was satisfied that it would not. Again, he thought pedigrees might be much better traced under the existing law, than it would be by the present Bill; and as regarded the registers themselves, he considered the place for their deposit would be much better in the Diocesan Courts than in the Central Court in London.

693
Whatever satisfaction the Bill might give to different descriptions of persons, of this he was sure, as regarded the farmers and the agricultural population and others of the Church of England, it would not be So satisfactory to them as the existing law. He was aware the sense of the House was against him on this occasion, and therefore he should only say Not-content to the third reading of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
On the motion of Viscount Melbourne, the House went again into Committee on the Church of England Bill. On the question that the preamble be postponed,
The Earl of Riponsaid, he thought it would be convenient, inasmuch as the points in the preamble contained the principle of the Bill, if he troubled their Lordships with a few words. He was sorry to be under the necessity of doing so, and very much regretted to have to say any thing which should appear as expressing any doubt at all as to the recommendations of the Commissioners. He approved of the appointment of that Commission—he approved of its constitution, of the general recommendations which it laid before the Crown, and upon which their Lordships were now called upon to legislate. There was, however, one point upon which he was anxious to say a few words, and with respect to which, although he was not prepared to suggest any alteration, he thought was one which was well worthy of consideration. The point to which he referred was with regard to the abolition of the ancient bishopric of Sodor and Man, and uniting it with the see of Carlisle. The bishopric of Sodor and Man had existed for 1,400 years, and the see had been filled by individuals distinguished for their great talents, learning, and piety during the time they so held the see. Now the situation of the bishopric of Sodor and Man was one of a very peculiar character, and in many respects different from the situation of the Bishops of this country. The Bishop of Sodor and Man was ex officio a member of the executive governing body in the Isle of Man. He was also ex officio principal trustee of every charitable institution which exists in that island; and whatever differences of opinion might have occasionally arisen on other matters in the Isle of Man, he believed it was a matter of fact that the general feeling of the 50,000 inhabitants of that island was strongly against the
694
abolition of this bishopric and uniting it with that of Carlisle. He was somewhat at a loss to understand why this change should take place. He hardly thought it could be on the ground of convenience to the Bishop of Carlisle, who would have to cross the seas to perform his duties. He confessed he had very little personal knowledge of that part of the country, but their Lordships would observe that the union of the see of Sodor and Man with that of Carlisle was not necessary for a more convenient arrangement for that see, because it was proposed that the Bishopric of Carlisle should receive certain additions from Chester and York; therefore the union of Sodor and Man with Carlisle was totally unnecessary for the execution of the general principle on which the re-distribution of the English bishoprics was founded. He must say, that he thought it a hard thing on the feelings of the people of the Isle of Man that they should be deprived of the advantage of a resident and well-educated respectable gentleman to fill the office of a Bishop in that place. He thought it therefore would be well that their Lordships should take this subject into their serious consideration.
The Bishop of Rochesterhaving had the honour and pleasure of filling the see of Sodor and Man for fourteen years, was afraid that their Lordships might suppose he gave a prejudiced opinion on this subject, but he could assure their Lordships, from his own personal knowledge, that the feelings of the inhabitants of the Isle of Man corresponded with those which had been expressed by the noble Earl. He did not see that any advantage would be derived on this side of the water from the union of the see with that of Carlisle, and while he should be very averse to impugning the decision to which the Commissioners had come, he, at the same time, should be glad if this see could be retained.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that in recommending the union of the see of Sodor and Man with that of Carlisle, the Commissioners had but one object in view—namely, the equalisation of the territories of the Bishops as much as possible, and that no Bishop should be left without a suitable number of parishes subject to his jurisdiction. It would not, therefore, have been conformable to the rule laid down, and embodied in this Bill, to leave the Bishopric of Sodor and Man with only eighteen parishes, a small number compared to the other dioceses.
Lord Lyndhurstwas prepared to pay the utmost possible deference to the opinions of the members of the Commission and to the report they had made; but he agreed with his noble Friend, that the Bishopric of Sodor and Man was not analogous to the different sees of this kingdom. The Isle of Man enjoyed a species of separate jurisdiction; it consisted of eighteen parishes; it had a separate legislature, and therefore their Bishop ought not to be taken away in consequence of what took place in the rest of the kingdom. It must be recollected, that the Isle of Man enjoyed the advantage of very few resident gentry, except the Bishop; and his residence there was, in point of fact, a matter of great and extreme importance. It must also be recollected that a portion of the revenues of the see arose from tithes collected in the island, amounting annually, as he was informed, to 1,000 l. a-year; while the island possessed a separate legislature and council, and the Bishop was an important and efficient member of that council. Again, their Lordships must be aware there was another important point for consideration. There were various charitable trusts of great importance, and the Bishop was an efficient administrator of those trusts, which were under his superintendence, direction, and control; and on this account the more particularly he pressed the subject on their Lordships' attention. He was sorry to do so contrary to the opinion of the most reverend Prelate and of the Commissioners; but he begged to suggest whether it would not be proper to take a little time for consideration on a matter of so much importance.
Viscount Melbournehad no knowledge of that part of the country, but he must say, that the matter was very fully considered by the Commissioners; and if he might refer to what took place in that Commission, he would say that no dissent was expressed to the recommendation for the uniting the see of Sodor and Man with that of Carlisle. The ground on which that was proposed had been correctly stated by the most reverend Prelate—namely, that the jurisdiction was too insignificant, the number of parishes were too few, and the amount of population too small, to justify the continuance of the establishment of a bishop in the Isle of Man. With regard to the revenues of the see being derived from the island, it was understood, when the subject was under dis-
696
cussion, that they were to go to the augmentation of the different benefices of the island, and therefore they would be as advantageously distributed as at present. With regard to the observation of the noble and learned Lord, that the Bishop was a member of the council, he must be permitted to say, that he thought the constitution of the island would go on and be as well regulated, without the Bishop being a member of that body, as if he still continued to belong to it. With respect to the charitable trusts also, he had no doubt, that there would be found in the island a respectable clergy to enforce their due administration. He could not take upon himself to say what the feelings of the inhabitants of the island were on this subject; at the same time he would submit to their Lordships, that the recommendation in question had been proposed by the Commissioners, and had been adopted in this Bill; and it was a fact, that was somewhat remarkable, that if so strong a feeling existed on the subject, that no petition had been presented against the proposed alteration. He did not think the antiquity of the bishopric, or any of the other considerations which had been adverted to, ought to have the effect of inducing their Lordships not to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect, in the manner proposed by this Bill.
The Earl of Riponobserved, that his noble Friend had assigned one reason for opposing the proposition—namely, that there had been an absence of petitions. Now he (Lord Ripon) must consider himself in some degree responsible for that. His advice was, that a representation should be made to the Commissioners requesting them to take the subject into their consideration. His noble Friend also said, that the application of the revenues of the bishopric were not to go to the augmentation of the see of Carlisle, but to increase the livings of the poorer clergy of the island; poor they certainly were, for they did not enjoy anything like a decent maintenance. But there was no necessity to abolish the see for that purpose; he could suggest a fund from which the payments to effect this object might have been derived, for it did so happen, that the Crown was in possession of a certain amount of tithe in the Isle of Man, and if his Majesty should be graciously pleased to permit, then these tithes might be appropriated to the increase of these small livings. That course had been followed by Queen Anne, and although

697
this might not be proper as a universal principle, still he thought it applicable in the present instance.
Lord Lyndhurstbelieved, that a petition had been presented to the Commissioners— at any rate all proper representations were made to the Commissioners, and he thought they must have escaped the eye of his noble Friend.
Lord Hollandthought, that the observations made in favour of the proposition of the noble Earl were so many arguments in favour of the Bill. His noble Friend must take the consequence of the advice he had given to these parties. He had no right to take advantage of both sides of the question. He should not have advised them not to send up their petitions to the House of Lords and House of Commons, where they might have had the subject fairly discussed and agitated, and then after that turn round and say a great feeling existed on the subject.
The Bishop of Lincolnsaid, the noble and learned Lord had spoken of a petition as having been presented to the Commissioners from the Isle of Man. True it was that a petition had been so presented, but it was not a petition against the abolition of the bishopric, but for the augmentation of small livings.
The Bishop of Exeterasked, whether their Lordships were to legislate solely upon what took place before the Commissioners. He would contend that a worse arrangement than that of uniting the see of Carlisle with Sodor and Man could not be suggested, as far as regarded the diocesan of Carlisle; for he would have to make one or two voyages annually to the Isle of Man. He believed also that the people of the island would not be benefited, because they would not only be without their principal resident, but without their Bishop, and the see of Carlisle would be deprived of the presence of their diocesan, in these necessary absences to the Isle of Man. He could speak practically of the inconvenience arising from this divided description of jurisdiction. The Scilly Islands were within the diocese of Exeter, and he must go there during the present summer at the greatest possible inconvenience, or else delay his visit, which would be very unsatisfactory to him, until another year. He was decidedly in favour of the proposition submitted by his noble Friend, and he trusted it was one to which their Lordships would agree.
The Marquess of Lansdownedefended the recommendations of the Commissioners and said their great object had been, and in his view of the subject it was a most desirable one, to equalize the income of the Bishop, by taking from the higher dignitaries of the Church, and adding the amount to the smaller-paid bishoprics, and giving them all a corresponding number of parishes to superintend. From the facilities of communication which now existed between the Isle of Man and this country, the Bishop of Carlisle could, with perfect convenience and efficiency, exercise the superintendence which was proposed to be confided to him. The noble Earl opposite had given the best reason in the world for the expediency of this measure, because he had said that a great portion of the clergy in the island were in a state of distress, and therefore there could be no better mode of employing the revenues of the bishopric than distributing them amongst the clergy.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he was convinced that the Commissioners had formed their decisions upon reasons and arguments referable to the state of the Church, not only in the Isle of Man, but elsewhere. He was therefore desirous of giving to those decisions all the support in that House that he conscientiously could; and he earnestly recommended their Lordships to pursue a similar course.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he did not understand his noble Friend near him to have moved any amendment. He found in the Bill no provision for a distribution of the revenues of this see, and he had therefore asked a question on the subject.
Preamble postponed.
On the 1st Clause,
The Bishop of Exeter The Bishop of Exeter moved an amendment, the object of which was to prevent the Commissioners from becoming a perpetual corporation.
Their Lordships divided on the original question: Contents 31; Not-Contents 10: —Majority 21.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 10,
The Bishop of Exeter The Bishop of Exeter moved, that there be added to it a proviso, that nothing in the Bill should extend to authorise the Commissioners to recommend the alienation of any episcopal land or hereditaments except in the case of the see of Durham, for the purpose of augmenting small livings.
The Committee divided on the original

699
motion: Contents 32; Not-Contents 7: —Majority 25.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed, Bill to be Reported.