HL Deb 09 July 1896 vol 42 cc1088-97

Provided that no clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be liable to any pains or penalties for withholding the rights and privileges of Church membership from persons living together in marriage made valid by this Act, or from either of them; and nothing herein contained shall relieve any such clergyman from any ecclesiastical pains or penalties to which he would otherwise be liable if this Act had not been passed, by reason of his solemnising a marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife by reason of his contracting, or having contracted, or living in marriage with his own deceased wife's sister.

*VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to omit the following words:— Provided that no clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be liable to any pains or penalties for withholding the rights and privileges of Church membership from persons living together in marriage made valid by this Act, or from either of them.

The Amendment, he said, did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, but it did affect very much the position of individual members of the Church of England. He would not discuss what these rights and privileges were. It was sufficient for his purpose that they referred to the Holy Communion. A man might have married his deceased wife's sister and be living quietly and respectably in a village. A new clergyman might come to that parish with extreme views, and led on by conscientious scruples, possibly might withhold the rights and privileges of the Church to this man and woman. The clause said that if he did so, he should not be liable to any pains and penalties. It seemed to him that the clause as it stood was calculated to encourage such proceedings and to create scandal in a parish. This clause would set clergymen above the law of the land, because it would enable them to say that people were not married although their marriage was recognised by the law. If a layman were to state publicly that a man lived with a woman as his mistress when his marriage with her was recognised by the law of the land, he would certainly be subject to proceedings for libel. Why then enact that a clergyman who made such a statement, thereby insulting a member of the Church of England, and depriving him of his rights, should be exempt from pains and penalties? The laity would very naturally object to this proposed establishment of sacerdotal rule.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

regretted that his first speech in their Lordships' House should have to be made in defence of the rights and conscientious convictions of the clergy. The clause as it stood would reconcile him to the Bill if anything could. It would be monstrous to compel a clergyman to do certain things for doing which at present he would be liable to ecclesiastical censure. He trusted that their Lordships would not burden the consciences of men who were doing their utmost to serve God and the people in Church and State, and would refuse to place them in this terrible position. He shuddered to think of the trouble which the omission of this provision from the Bill would involve.

LORD DAVEY

thought that the right reverend prelate had largely exaggerated, in fact driven to death, the argument as to the burden that would be imposed on clergymen's consciences. According to the noble Viscount who had moved the previous Amendment, the provision which it was proposed to omit from the Bill would have the effect of enabling clergymen to refuse the Holy Communion to persons who had contracted the marriage made valid by the Bill. He supposed the ground of the refusal would be that the parties were "notorious evil livers," that they were in fact living in immorality. He knew of no other ground upon which a clergyman could refuse the sacrament, which was the principal privilege of Church membership. It appeared to him monstrous that the clergy of the Established Church should be at liberty to stigmatise people as notorious evil livers when they were married with the sanction and approval of the law. On that ground he should support the Amendment.

*VISCOUNT HALIFAX

wished to ask their Lordships what results they supposed would be arrived at if the present Amendment were carried? Did they suppose that the clergy had no consciences? Did they imagine that, because it pleased Parliament to alter the marriage law, the clergy would be prepared to give the lie to all that they had taught hitherto on the subject of Christian marriage? If they imagined that, they would make a mistake. It would be said that he was an extreme person; but when such different papers as the Guardian, the Church Times, the Record and the English Churchman all agreed upon this subject, they might feel sure that there was a great mass of opinion among the clergy and laity upon this question. If this Amendment were embodied in the Bill and the Bill passed, they would provoke a quarrel between the civil law and conscience, the result of which would be very much to the misfortune of the law. He was not inclined to see things pushed too far, believing that heroic remedies were very deplorable. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would consent to be taught by past experience. Their Lordships would remember passing an Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, in which it was laid down that the clergy of the Roman Church should not do certain things and should incur penalties if they did them. But that did not prevent them doing them. A little later their Lordships passed a Public Worship Regulation Act in order to affirm a certain principle. What had been the result? Why, the Act that was to enforce a certain principle had been the very instrument which had laid aside that principle for ever. If this Bill was to pass it would only be prudent to pass it in such a form as to minimise the friction which it must produce. The Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, far from minimising that friction, must increase it.

EARL COWPER

said that, of course there might be some clergymen who might wish to make martyrs of themselves, and who might refuse to obey the law, but he could not help thinking that the great mass of the clergy, even of those who would rather not administer the Holy Communion to people in this position, would, if the law obliged them to do so, feel it to be their duty to obey and to conform to the law of the land. However lamentable it might be that certain people should become martyrs for a rather strange reason, the evil of having one or two cases of that sort would be a far smaller evil than the enormity of seeing people deprived of the Holy Communion for no reason except that they had done what the Legislature would have declared that it was lawful for them to do. In the privilege given to clergymen of refusing to marry divorced persons there was no great harm, for after all a man might be married at a registry, but the question now under consideration was a very different matter. If the Amendment were rejected, unless a man had an elastic conscience, and felt that he could go for Holy Communion to a dissenting chapel or elsewhere, he must be absolutely debarred from participating in it. He did not think that the oppression from which the clergy must fancy that they were suffering could weigh in the balance as against that consideration. He admitted that it was a pity to have to make this change in the Bill after it had been read a Second time, for it was possible that some of their Lordships had voted for it who would not have done so if it had not contained this provision. There was, however, to be another contest on the Third Reading, and consequently the supporters of the Amendment were not open to any charge of breach of faith. He was very anxious that the Bill should pass, but he could not approve the retention of the provisions under consideration.

LORD HERSCHELL

sympathised with a great deal that the noble Earl had said. He strongly desired to see this Bill pass into law, and he thought that the matter to which attention had been called by the supporters of the Amendment was of less importance than that the Bill in some form should become law. If such grievances as had been described were afterwards suffered, public feeling would be aroused, and that would make it easy to pass an amending Act to prevent the continuance of these grievances. As the Bill had passed the Second Reading in the form in which it now stood, it would perhaps be wise not to make the alteration proposed by the noble Viscount opposite. It was true, however, that much was not gained by the concession to clerical opinion which was embodied in the provisions under consideration, because the hostility of the right reverend Bench and others seemed to be quite as acute as it would have been if there had been no concession at all. Therefore, he did not think that many votes were gained by the concession at the Second Reading. This Measure, he feared, was not likely to become law this Session, but it would be a great thing if it could pass at a future time with general consent and with the quietness of feeling that had characterised to some extent its reception on the present occasion. Thinking that the result would be more likely to be obtained if the proposed change was not made in the Bill, he did not feel that it would be expedient to press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEY

said that he desired earnestly that this Bill should pass, and he dared say that a certain number of votes might be influenced in its favour by the retention of this particular provision in the clause. At the same time he must say that he had never seen in a Bill anything more objectionable than this provision. He believed that if this question was not settled the result would be far more injurious to the Church than to laymen. More pressure of this kind might increase the number of those who already had their doubts about the advantages of an Established Church. He was one of the last persons who would desire to see any contest between laymen and ecclesiastics of the Church, but at the same time he felt more strongly than ever that there was no other real solution of the difficulties in question than to make the binding marriage a civil marriage alone. ["Hear, hear!"]

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that after what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill, he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill was an attempt at compromise—it was presented in a spirit of concession, and he was bound to confess that their efforts at conciliation had not been met in all quarters with the reciprocity they anticipated. It was sought by the Bill to draw a clear distinction between the civil marriage and the religious ceremony, and that being so, it was, of course, impossible for him to accept the Amendment proposed. Moreover, he felt very strongly indeed that as the Bill was passed by a substantial majority on the Second Reading, it would be, to say the least, a very unwise and dangerous course to ask that the Measure should be passed for the Third time under different conditions and in a different shape. ["Hear, hear!"]

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he did not think that those who had spoken had attached sufficient weight to the importance of the consciences of men. It was not right to oppress the conscience of any man; but it was further most impolitic in the highest interests of the country generally to pass any legislation which would wrest the consciences of those who were engaged as public teachers and instructors. The clergyman and the teacher were taught from their youth upwards a certain doctrine about marriage, and in holding that doctrine they had been protected by the law and supported by the authority of the Church. It would be a serious thing to so change the law as to put pressure on those men to violate their consciences. He might remind their Lordships of similar difficulties when formerly the clergy were called upon to bury men of profligate and vicious character with words of the highest Christian hope, and when rather than violate their conscience by uttering those prayers they submitted to be suspended or deprived of their benefices. It was thought just to consider the consciences of the clergy then, and he did not think it was less important to do so now. ["Hear, hear!"]

The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—

CONTENTS … … 47
NOT-CONTENTS … … 90

DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Lincoln, L. Bp.
Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.) Oxford, L. Bp.
St. Albans, L. Bp.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Salisbury, L. Bp.
Winchester, L. Bp.
Portland, P. Balfour, L.
Saint Albans, D. [TELLER.] Boston, L.
Churchill, L.
Clinton, L.
Ailesbury, M. Colchester, L.
Cottesloe, L.
Abingdon, E. Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Beauchamp, E. Egerton, L.
Carnwath, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerich.)
de Montalt, E.
Dudley, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Ellesmere, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl. [TELLER.]
Lauderdale, E.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Mayo, E. Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)
Morton, E. Northington, L. (L. Henley.)
Onslow, E.
Stanhope, E. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Waldegrave, E.
Rodney, L.
Falkland, V. Rothschild, L.
Halifax, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Melville, V. Stanmore, L.
Ely, L. Bp. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Belmore, E.
Camperdown, E. [TELLER.]
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)
Carrington, E.
Bristol, M. Chesterfield, E.
Hertford, M. Clarendon, E.
Northampton, M. Cowper, E.
Crewe, E. Glenesk, L.
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Kimberley, E. Hawkesbury, L.
Northbrook, E. Heneage, L.
Powis, E. Howard de Walden, L.
Saint Germans, E. Leigh, L.
Spencer, E. Macnaghten, L.
Yarborough, E. Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Middleton, L.
Knutsford, V. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) [TELLER.]
Oxenbridge, V.
Portman, V. Playfair, L.
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Belper, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Rendel, L.
Shand, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Sherborne, L.
Tweedmouth, L.
Burghclere, L. Wandsworth, L.
Castletown, L. Wantage, L.
Clonbrock, L. Watson, L.
Coleridge, L. Welby, L.
Davey, L. Westbury, L.
De Saumarez, L. Wolverton, L.
Dorchester, L. Wrottesley, L.
Farrer, L.
*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY

proposed the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 2:— 3. Provided further, that no man who has boon divorced for, or convicted of, adultery with his wife's sister, shall at any time under this Act be permitted to contract a marriage with her; and any such pretended marriage shall be void. He asked their Lordships to regard the Amendment, not as hostile to the Bill, but as a natural complement to it. He recognised that the promoters of the Bill had really tried to meet the objections of those who, like himself, were strong opponents of the Bill, in a certain measure and degree; they had tried to meet the religious objections. But they had not attempted to meet the objections to the Bill on social grounds. What were the social objections to the Bill? That it would absolutely destroy the brotherly relations between a man and his wife's sister after his wife's death, and very much embarrass those which existed between the wife and her nearest friend during her lifetime. The adoption of this Amendment would make it possible for the wife's sister to remain, as she was now, a constant visitor, especially in times of sickness, at her sister's home. He thought all parties would be protected by the knowledge that any undue familiarity would be visited with severe punishment indeed. There was no doubt that under the present law cases of undue familiarity existed. His friend, the President of the Probate Division, informed him that there were already a certain number of cases of such familiarity. Would the Bill, if it became law, increase or decrease that number? They should protect the existing relationship, and show that any infraction of it was a very serious and heinous offence. He did not propose to press his Amendment to a Division, but he would like to hear what those in charge of the Bill had to say in reply to his arguments.

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

hoped his right reverend Friend would withdraw the Amendment, with which the Episcopal Bench did not agree.

Amendment negatived.

*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY

May I withdraw it?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The Amendment has been negatived, and therefore cannot be withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved the insertion, after Clause 3, of the following new clause:— 4. Nothing in this Act shall affect the law of marriage in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 192.]