HL Deb 05 May 1902 vol 107 cc600-3
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the valuable Report of a Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage presented to Parliament in 1868, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of giving effect to its recommendations by legislation. No one can, I think, doubt the profound importance of this subject. It deals with the earliest and closest of all the social relations which exist among, mankind and which constitute the very basis of society itself; and it affects, directly or indirectly, the happiness of the whole human race. Now, this Commission was, in itself, somewhat remarkable. It was presided over by the Lord Chancellor of the day, and of the four distinguished lawyers who were among its Members, three of them successively-occupied the position of Lord Chancellor. The Commission was not only remarkable for its composition and the dignity and importance of its members, but also for the Report that was issued. This was not a case in which there was divergence of opinion. There was no minority Report. Everyone of the members of the Commission signed the Report with the exception of one noble Lord who was unfortunately unable to be present on more than a few occasions and did not feel himself justified in appending his signature. The state of the marriage laws of England at that time is stated in one of the earlier sentences of the Report, as follows— The marriage laws of England and Ireland differ most materially from that of Scotland; and the laws of England and Ireland, while they agree in their leading principles, differ in many important particulars, and do not apply those principles in a uniform or always in a consistent manner. The Commissioners recognised that there were great difficulties in dealing with a matter of so much intricacy and complexity, but they did not despair of success. These are their own words— After the most careful and deliberate consideration of this subject, we have come to the conclusion that the difficulties in the way of the attainment of our object are not insuperable, and that it is the duty of the State to make an earnest endeavour to overcome them. These words were appropriate and weighty thirty-five years ago, but they have even more force at the present time, for they are as true to-day as they were in 1868. The Commissioners criticised freely, and not unjustly, the complexity of the law, and the elements of uncertainty that existed in it, on which the validity or nullity of so many marriages depended. The object the Commissioners had in view was, in their own words— To consider what are the principles on which a marriage law, applicable to all parts of the kingdom ought to be founded, and to bring existing laws where they differ from each other to the test of those principles. Further, they made up their minds that in any measure which they might suggest to remedy these evils, they would keep this principle in view—that the marriage law ought to embrace the maximum of simplicity and certainty. Now, my Lords, it seems to me that the time has surely come when something might be done to deal with this most valuable and interesting Report. Since 1868 up to the present day all the complexities, and uncertainties, and inequalities in the law have remained in their full activity. Surely the time has come when this valuable Report might be removed from its obscure resting-place on the shelves of your Lordships' House and some endeavour made to translate its recommendations into legislation. This matter concerns, in some degree, not only the happiness of the people, but the credit and the honour of one of the greatest nations of the world. We as a nation are proud of our high civilisation, of our earnest endeavour to do justice to everybody in all things, whether rich or poor, learned or ignorant—not only to do justice in all things to all men, but to all women, and even to their children. It is from a desire to promote, as far as a humble individual may, this object that I venture to ask the Prime Minister the Question on the Paper.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)

I confess to have been very much affected by the observations of the most rev. prelate. He never mentioned the words "Prime Minister" before, and to be asked to express an opinion suddenly on the Report of a Commission which sat thirty-five years ago is, I confess, a trial for which I had not entirely prepared myself. The only thing I can promise is to do what I have not yet done—to read the Report. Until I am able to read the Report the most rev. prelate will not think I am wanting in respect if I decline to express any opinion. I know the subject which he has brought forward in this somewhat unexpected manner is one of the most thorny and difficult which can be submitted to any legislative assembly in the world; and, with the deepest respect for his abilities and his un-doubted sincerity, I extremely doubt if any exhortations which come from him will have for their result that either House of Parliament will furnish a satisfactory clue to the labyrinth of matrimonial legislation. The difficulties are extreme. What they are I think I should rather hear from the most rev. prelate than profess to give them on my own account; but the very fact that we have now gone on for more than 300 years without effecting any satisfactory solution of the various difficulties which the marriage law presents to us is not, I am afraid, encouraging to the prospect of any successful results to our efforts in the future; and all that we can do is to hope that the most rev. and right rev. bench and the most rev. prelate himself, now that they have devoted themselves to this very difficult and almost unparalleled task, will be able to arrive more nearly to a result than we have ever had a chance of arriving at before. As far as our experience goes, discussions upon the marriage law have been fruitful in conflict and fruitful in the display of difference of opinion, but have not yet produced any satisfactory indication of a common agreement.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

I only intervene to correct a misapprehension, due, perhaps, to an imperfect reading of the Report. The most rev. prelate is mistaken in saying that the Commissioners were unanimous. There were two very important dissentients—namely, Lord O'Hagan and the Lord Justice General of Scotland.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

I am quite aware of the opinions expressed by those two dissentients on certain points; but I think I am right in saying that all the members signed the Report.