The Lord Chancellorhaving presented a petition praying for an alteration of the law relating to the marriages of Presbyterians with Episcopalians, begged leave to state, in consequence of what had passed last night, that he had received a private intimation that leave had been given in the other House of Parliament to bring in a bill upon the subject of these marriages. He had made inquiries as to the state of that bill, and he learned that their Lordships might expect to see the bill in that House in the course of next week. He had, undoubtedly, supposed that the bill would have been returned to him before it was proposed to be introduced. He might add, that upon inquiries he found that the bill was now in the same state in which it had been when it passed from his hands.
§ The Marquess of Lansdowneexpressed his regret that the bill had not been introduced first in their Lordships' House, because he thought that from the state of the business of the House of Commons, and from the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, the leader of that House, of his intention to proceed to the close of the matter which had been already for some time under discussion, it was extremely unlikely that their Lordships would have the bill before them at a period so early as had been anticipated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Lord Campbellbegged to inquire whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have any objection to state to the House whether the bill which had been prepared was a declaratory or an enacting bill? He too could not help declaring his deep regret at the course which had been taken, and that the bill had not originated in that House, where so much more time might have been devoted to it than it could at present receive in the House of Commons, and where it might immediately receive the aid of the deep learning and acquirements of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and of other noble and learned Lords.
The Lord Chancellorbefore he answered the question put by his noble and learned Friend, said, he must observe that the noble Marquess had not correctly stated what had fallen from the authority in the other House whom he quoted. What that right hon. Gentleman had said was, that there would not be time for the consideration of any other important question until that before the Commons was disposed of, with the exception of this very Bill relating to the mixed Marriages of Dissenters, so that for that measure time would be found, notwithstanding the pressure of the great question already before the House. With respect to the time at which the bill might be sent up from the Commons, he did not see any reason for thinking that it would be more distant than what he had already stated, namely, the end of next week, for he was not aware that there was any difference of opinion on it, which would be at all likely to retard its progress beyond that time. Without intending to say anything which could bring on a premature discussion of the measure, he would say, in answer to the question of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) that it would be "declaratory." It corresponded in every particular with the bill which he had prepared and sent to the law officers of the Crown, and when it came up from the other House he should, he hoped, be able to justify the particular form in which it had been prepared.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the making of it declaratory would no doubt cure one part of the evil complained of, but—
The Lord Chancellorwas anxious not to be misunderstood as to the nature of the bill, which would be "enacting." 1090 If he had stated it otherwise, it was a mistake of the moment.
Lord Broughamhad taken the word used by his noble and learned Friend, but take the bill to be "enacting," what, he would ask, was to become of those marriages of Quakers and others in our colonies, which stood on precisely the same grounds as that case on which the unfortunate decision of the Irish judges had recently been made?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that his noble and learned Friend would find clauses in the bill which would apply to those points to which he had alluded; if he should not think them sufficient he could propose to amend. It was not, let him add, the object of the bill to affect any cases but those to which it professed to apply.
Lord BroughamBut then, if it apply only to the removal of one evil, it would tend to throw doubts on other cases, which should by all possible means be avoided.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was unfortunate in not making himself clearly understood by some of their Lordships. All noble Lords whom he had heard say anything on the subject were agreed that some measure should be introduced to render valid all those marriages which had taken place between Dissenters and members of the Church of England, and which had been declared invalid by the recent decision of the judges. It was also considered desirable that some measure should be introduced for the purpose of settling the general question as to those marriages in future; but it was understood, at least so he understood it, that in the meantime a short bill should be introduced which would remove the immediate evil, but was not, and could not, be meant to affect any measure which might be considered necessary on the whole question of Dissenters' marriages in Ireland in future.
Lord Campbellthought, that there was no doubt whatever of the urgency of the case, but the law must also be considered, and he felt that it was of the last importance that a proper decision should be arrived at, whether this bill should be a declaratory or an enacting bill. He begged to suggest to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord the statute 21 and 22 Geo. 3rd, which related to the validity of marriages of Presbyterians. If the marriages between Presbyterians and Episcopalians were invalid, so also the intermarriages of Presbyterians before that act must have 1091 been also invalid. The Irish legislature, however, in passing that act had not adopted the course which was now proposed, in enacting that these marriages should be valid; but they had declared that they were valid. It was of the greatest importance that this point should be considered, for he could not help thinking that it was better to follow that which was a direct precedent than to take a new course of proceeding.
The Lord Chancellorcould not enter into this question without entering into the whole consideration of the law affecting these marriages; he would not therefore at the present time make any inquiry into the subject, the bill being before the other House of Parliament; but when it should come before their Lordships, he would state the grounds on which he proposed that it should be an enacting bill. The distinction between the act alluded to by his noble and learned Friend and the bill now before Parliament was this: that act had for its object the regulation of both past and future marriages, while this bill was directed to the former object only. He should not, however, enter any further into the question, but should defer anything that he had to say to the period when the bill should be before the House.—Petition laid on the Table.
§ Adjourned.