Lords Sitting of 28 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Post" Horse Duties; Insolvent Debtors; Insolvent Debtors' (India); Sale of Bread; Entail Relief (Scotland); Judicial Ratification (Scotland); Commissary Court (Edinburgh); Excise Licenses' (Ireland); Arms' (Ireland); Constabulary Act Amendment (Ireland); Turnpike Roads' (Ireland); Administration of Justice (New South Wales); Antigua, &c. Indemnity; Judges' Chambers;—Read a third time—Church of Ireland.—Read a second time:—Exchequer Suits in Equity.—Read a first time:—Poole Corporation. Petitions presented. By the Bishop of EXETER, from Nairn, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.

PRICE OF COALS.
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to move for certain returns, to the production of which he believed there would be no opposition. By the Act of the 10th of George 4th, cap. 136, it was provided, that an account should be annually laid before Parliament of the receipt and expenditure of monies derived from a tax on coals, levied to defray the expense of forming approaches to the new London-bridge. That work had been completed; but he understood that it was intended, by a Bill introduced elsewhere, to continue the tax, for the purpose of enabling the Corporation of London to
604
repair and widen Brackfriars-bridge. In order to enable their Lordships to judge of the enormous amount of money which under the Act he had alluded to was taken out of the pockets of the consumers of this most necessary article, he should merely state, that in the year 1835 the city of London received from the tax of 8d. per ton no less than a sum of 76,753 l. In addition to that, there was 4d. per ton metage, and 1d. per ton commuted market due, amounting to 48,000 l., and making a gross total of 124,753 l. Now, if this tax were to be continued for the repairing of Black friars-bridge, it might, when that work was finished, be still further continued to defray the expense of some other improvement in the city, and it was for their Lordships to consider whether it was proper that such an impost should be levied for an indefinite period. As an individual, he had nothing to say to the arrangement; but it was right that the public should be aware of the cause of the high price of coals, which was so much complained of. There was, in fact, an increase of nearly 180,000 l. between the charge made by the proprietors of this commodity and that which was paid by the consumers. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for the returns.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Marriages Bill.
On Clause 21,
The Bishop of Exeterobjected to the form of declaration described in the clause, as not setting forth that the marriage contract was of a religious nature, and indissoluble in respect to its obligations. Hitherto, marriage had always been considered as a sacred and religious ceremony; and at the time of the Usurpation a most solemn formula was established, which was to the following effect:—"I, A. B., do hereby, in the presence of God, the searcher of all hearts, take thee, C. D., to be my wedded wife, and I do solemnly promise, before God and these witnesses, to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband." A similar form was adopted still by the Quakers and other sects He was of opinion that nothing ought to be done to reduce the sanctity of that ceremony; but he feared that the laxity of the proposed law would reduce it to the same state as it was in France. Words

605
ought to be introduced into the clause to express the sacredness of the contract, and that it was indissoluble in its nature. He therefore proposed to substitute, for the declaration in the clause, the following declaration:—"In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses I., M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, to live together according to God's holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly promise before these witnesses to be to thee a loving and faithful husband during life."
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to the amendment. There was a clause in the Bill already providing for the religious solemnization of the contract; and if the amendment were carried, the effect would be to establish two religious forms.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the amendment would destroy the very object of the Bill, which was to provide relief for a class of persons in this country who considered marriage in the light of a civil contract only. The declaration was simply to inform the State what marriages were contracted, and by whom, without reference to any religious ceremony.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, the words of the clause, as they stood at present, did not seem to imply any religious ceremony, which they ought to do. He should, therefore, support the amendment.
Lord Hollandwas in favour of the clause as it stood.
The Committee divided on the question that the original declaration in the clause be omitted, when there appeared—Content 19; Not Content 15: Majority 4.
On the question that the declaration proposed by the Bishop of Exeter be inserted,
Lord Ellenboroughprotested against the declaration introduced by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), as being likely to be productive of great mischief to society generally, and especially to the Church.
The Bishop of Exetergave credit to the noble Baron for a sincere attachment to the Church, but he thought him mistaken in estimating the consequences of the amendment. He (the Bishop of Exeter) believed that there was a very large body of persons not connected with the Establishment who would not scruple to make the proposed declaration. As to any mischiefs which might result from it, he was of opinion that the most mischief would accrue
606
from adopting any proposition which would tend to reduce the sacred character of the marriage contract.
The Earl of Riponentirely disagreed with the right rev. Prelate as to the propriety of introducing the words he had proposed, as they would give rise to great inconvenience, and would in fact most materially affect those very persons for whose relief the clause was intended.
The Lord Chancellorwas satisfied that the declaration would be destructive of the great object in view, as it went to make the contract—which was only intended as evidence of a contract for civil purposes, without disturbing the present different modes of celebrating marriage according to each person's religious views,—they went to make it a religious contract,—a proposition which was utterly inconsistent with the object of the Bill.
Viscount Melbournecalled upon their Lordships, before they divided, to reconsider this question. Indeed, as these words were likely to be fatal to the Bill, to counteract the object with which it had been introduced, and to prevent the good which it was intended to effect, he could not refrain from asking their Lordships to postpone the consideration of the right rev. Prelate's proposition until there should be a fuller attendance. With that view he should move that the House do resume.
The Committee divided on Lord Melbourne's amendment:—Content 15; Not Content 17: Majority 2.
The Bishop of Exeter's declaration was added to the clause, and the clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The House resumed.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS on the first Division.

Lord Chancellor

Liverpool

DUKE.

LORDS.

Wellington

Ellenborough

EARLS.

Fitzgerald

Ripon

Plunkett

Shaftesbury

Gage

Rosslyn

Melbourne

EARLS.

Holland

Bradford

BISHOP.

Minto

Bristol

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Harrowby

Cumberland

Mansfield

MARQUESS.

Doncaster (Buccleuch)

Cholmondeley

LORDS.

Bute

Carbery

EARLS.

Calthorpe

Abingdon

Sondes

Brownlow

607

ARCHBISHOPS.

Lincoln

Canterbury

Gloucester

Armagh

Oxford

Hereford

BISHOPS.

Exeter

Cork

The Earl of Doncaster did not vote on the second division.