The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-18 00:00:00

CLERICAL MAGISTRATES.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR gave notice that on Monday next he
should bring forward a motion, that all clergymen holding the
situations of magistrates in Ireland should be forthwith
dismissed from the Commission of the peace, as their
continuance in that capacity was highly detrimental to the
peace of the country, and to the true interests of religion. He
also gave notice that on the same day he would renew his mo-
tion relative to the Rathcormac affair; and that on the motion
that the House should proceed to consider the orders of the day,
he should move as an amendment on it, the introduction of a
Bill to remove the difficulties existing between landlord and
tenant, relative to ejectments.
A conversation took place concerning a petition presented
by Alderman Woon against the return for Gloucester, in con-
sequence of its not having been presented within the time
limited by law. Alderman Woo)) ultimately agreed to with-
draw the petition.
Some reports were brought up from the Court of Chancery.
NEW WRIT FOR NOTTINGHAM.
Colonel VE R NON moved for a pew writ for the county of

Nottingham, in the room of Lord Lumley, who had been called
up to the House of Lords.
CHURCH OF IRELAND.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said he was
anxious to postpone the motion now standing for Monday the
23d, as he intended to defer the motion of which he
had given notice, respecting the Church of Ireland, until
Monday the 30th instant, when he should move that the
House be called over.
CORK COUNTY ELECTION.
Mr. LF,FRO Y presented a petition, that an amend-
ment might be made in the description of one of the
sureties in the petition against the return of the pre-
sent Members for the county of Cork. The name of one
of them was represented as William Mannix, of Blamire, in
the above-named county. Now, the fact was, that there
was no such person as William Mannix, and the peti-
tioners sought that the name of Henry might be
instituted for that now standing, as the remaining part of the
petition was virtually correct, with the exception of this in-
formality. lie hoped, therefore, the House would grant the
prayer of this petition, and allow the alteration to be made
from William to Henry Mannix.
Mr. O'CONNELL said there was no such allegation as
had been stated by the Hon. and Learned Member opposite
in the petition at all, and therefore his argument could not
apply.
Mr. S. RICE thought that this was a case in which the
House could not interfere. In ordinary cases of miscon-
ception, the House would of course give the relief which was
necessary ; but this was an actual application to substitute the
name of one person for another, or in other words to allow the
substitution of one security for another.—( Cries of " Hear "
from the Opposition Members.) Under these circumstances,
unless they were prepared to set at nought every principle which
had been laid down for the guidance of petitioners, and the
protection of the Members of that House, they could not pos-
sibly accede to this proposition—( Hear, hear.) He was ready
to admit the respectability of the parties from whom
the petition emanated, but in this instance they had
evidently committed a blunder, and if the House allowed
them to set aside the provisions of the law because they had
committed a blunder, there would be no use in laying they
rules for the regulation of proceedings in that House.—( Hear. )
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the parties had un-
dertaken to verify the allegations contained in the petition,
and it would he hard if the House refused to afford them an
opportunity of doing so. It was not, as had been stated by
lion. Members on the other side, an attempt to substitute
one person for another; it was, as had been alleged, a mistake
of the name of one person for that of another. (Mr. Spring
Rice here made an observation across the table.) It was so
stated in the petition. Assuming for a moment that there were
two brothers of the same name, then the allegation in the petition
was that they had mistaken the name of one brother residing at
Blamire for that of the other residing in England. This
circumstance would convince the House that it was not in-
tended to substitute one person for another. It was a very
different case from that brought forward by the Honourable
Member for the City of London, because, in that case, the
petitioners had given in no names, and had pleaded ignorance
of the law ; but, in the present case, they had been anxious to
obey the law, but had made a mistake in the Christian name
of one of the securities. It appeared to be a mere mistake,
and it would be rather hard to visit it with severity, the House
having the power of ordering the error to be corrected. If a
person did, or intended, to fulfil all the requirements of the
law, and committed some unintentional mistake, he thought
that the House should give it a lenient consideration.
Mr. O'LOGH LEN said that the allegation of the petition
was very different from the view of the case taken by the Hon.
Member. The petitioners merely stated that they had given
the name of Henry, and had since discovered that it was Wil-
liam. That was the sole foundation of the petition.
Mr. C. W. WYNN contended for the strict enforcement
of the law. That had always been his course, and he consi-
dered it to be the safest. In fact it ought never to be
deviated from except in very extraordinary cases, upon grounds
of a very unusual and important nature.
Sir R. H. INGLIS differed from his Right Hon. Friend.
The great object which the House had in view was to
give due bona fide notice to parties interested in the
securities to tender their recognizances, in order that
people might not be subjected to vexatious proceedings by
having men of straw signing election petitions. Here
there was a competent person, who it was not denied
resided in the parish of Blamire, in the county of
Cork, and of whose qualification, the Hon. Member for that
County said he was satisfied.
There were general cries of " withdraw," and the petition
was, as we understood, accordingly withdrawn.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL.
Sir R. PEEL.--Mr. Speaker, the object of the motion
with which I shall this night conclude is to effect the settle-
ment of the question with respect to which very great
public interest has been taken, which has long remained un-
settled, and in respect to the settlement of which, va-
rious hut ineffectual efforts have been made, which
if it had been settled would have a tendency to promote har-
mony and peace between those who adhere to, and those who
dissent from the doctrines of the Church. The object of the
measure which I am about to ask leave to introduce, is to
provide relief, in the case of marriage, for those Dissenters
who object to the ceremony of marriage, as performed ac-
cording to the rites of the Established Church. ( Hear. )
I have no doubt but that it is well known to every one by the
Act passed in the year 1754, viz., 26 Geo. 2., commonly
called Lord Hardwick's Act, a great alteration in the law of
marriage was made in this country. That Act provided that the
marriage ceremony shall be performed by a clergyman of the
Church of England, according to the rites of the Established
Church, with the exception of the cases of Jews and Quakers.
The Dissenting body object to that ; they say that there is
no relation of life more important to the habits of indi-
viduals in society than the contract of marriage, and they
object to a legal enactment which invalidates the
contract when performed, unless it be performed ac-
cording to ceremonies to which they entertain a formal
objection. They ask, therefore, relief from the Legis-
lature, and such an alterat;on of the law as will enable
them to contract the marriage ceremony, without being
compelled to solemnize it in a manner from which they
dissent. They object to that, and that objection being
made, we are bound to suppose that it is sincerely made,
and if so, no one can deny the justice and policy of affording
relief. The Church of England can attain no object
by compelling those who dissent from her doctrines
in performing certain contracts, to pursue the course
followed by those who assent to her doctrines. Society
can have no interest in enforcing that obligation. On the per-
formance of that ceremony the parties to it subscribe
to no new doctrine, but they receive a solemn benediction,
expressly given for the purpose of giving religious sanction
to the rite. Dissenters object to that benediction. They
object to the manner in which the ceremony is
solemnized. Under such circumstances it becomes ne-
cessary to consider in what mode that rite can be
performed satisfactory to them. Now it occurs to
me that there are only three modes by which the
object of the Dissenters can be obtained. In the first place, it
has been suggested as a remedy, that it would be possible to alter
the ceremony observed in the Church of England. Now, the
alteration would be an open violation done to those who, ad-
hering to the doctrines of the Church; approved of the cere-
mony.—(Hear, hear.) There is nothing in the ceremony
which they object to ; on the contrary, the benediction and
the ceremony contain the vital principles of their faith. But
besides this, the Dissenters not only objected to the ceremony
which they were obliged to go through, but they also objected
to the law by which the marriage could alone be contracted
' in one place • they objected to the law which rendered the mar-
riage invalid unless the ceremony was solemnized in the
Church. Now,'in regard to that objection, nothing would
be gained by a mere alteration in the form of the ceremony
—( Hear)—and he apprehended that by such an alteration
they would run the risk of giving dissatisfaction to the adhe-
rents of the Established Church without satisfying all classes
of Dissenters. His feeling was, that they ought to endeavour
to devise some alteration in the present law, which would be
likely to give satisfaction to all classes of Dissenters.—( Hear,
hear.) This might not be the case if a mere alteration of the
ceremony were adopted. There were some classes of the Dis-
senters who objected, he believed, to any religious rite at all
in the ceremony of marriage.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Others
might object to the principle of having the ceremony per-
formed only in the churches of the established religion,
or only by the ministers of the Established Church—(Cries
of " Hear, hear, hear")—and the result might be, that by
an alteration they should do violence to the consciences
of many scrupulous adherents of the Established Church,
without giving satisfaction to the Dissenters themselves. He
therefore apprehended that it would not be expedient to make
any alteration in the present form of celebrating marriages in
the Church of England, especially without knowing whether
such an alteration would meet with the general concurrence of
the members of the Church.—( Hear, hear.) But even if the
concurrence of the adherents of the Church were obtained, he
did not know whether it would be proper to adopt the plan,
for he could not hope to make such a change in the present
ceremony as would give satisfaction both to all classes of Dis-
senters, and to the members of the Established Church. He
therefore dismissed from his mind all hope of settling the
question by the adoption of that plan—namely, by an altera-
tion in the Liturgy of the Church of England.--( Hear, hear.)
The second mode of relief proposed--and, indeed, the mode
hitherto almost universally cried up as the only real relief—
was by a provision which would allow to the Dissenters the
privilege of performing the ceremony of marriage in their
own chapels ; and various Bills had at different times been
submitted to the consideration of Parliament, since the ques-
tion began to attract attention, which was about the year
1824, some of which had passed through the House of Com-
mons, but were rejected in the House of Lords, and all of
which were founded upon that principle—namely, that Dis-
senters should be allowed to perform the ceremony of mar-
riage in their own places of worship. In the year 1824, a Bill
was introduced for that purpose, but its operation was limited
simply to Unitarians; and in 1825 another Bill exactly to the
same effect was introduced. In 1827 a third Bill was intro-
duced, but in its principle it was different from those which
preceded it. But the last Bill which was introduced was in
1834, when the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell)
attempted to satisfy the Dissenters by permitting them to so-
lemnize the ceremony of marriage, under certain regulations,
in their own places of worship. He believed that the provi-
sions of the Noble Lord's Bill were the following :—He should
mention, that in devizing any plan for the relief of Dissenters
in respect to the ceremony of marriage, three distinct matters
were to be held in view. The first point was the notice ne-
cessary to be given on application for bans or a license, or
whatever other form was adopted to prevent fraud and decep-
tion in the contraction of marriage; the second was, as to the
nature of the contract or ceremony of marriage to be re-
quired ; and the third was, as to the mode of registration.
Now, the Noble Lord, in the Bill which he introduced, pro-

N;ided this—that the bans should be published in the Church
of England, by an established clergyman of the sale°
Church ; that a declaration should be made by the Mi-
nister of the Established Church, that the bans had been
published ; and it allowed that upon such a declaration
being given by the Minister, the ceremony of marriage niigh,
be performed in the Dissenting chapels. The Noble Lore s
Bill also provided that a licence should be given to any Dise
stinting chapel to have the ceremony of marriage performed_
within it, provided a petition to that effect were signed by.2o
householders living in the neighbourhood, and attending denute
worship at that chapel. If such a petition were presented.
to
the Quarter Sessions, the justices were allowed no power
withhold the licence, and in that case Dissenters were allowed
t
to solemnize marriage within that chapel. Then, with respeer
to registration, it was provided that the minister, preacher, o
teacher, should keep the register of the marriages, and that
the registration should be made at the expence of those who
attended divine worship in the chapels ; and that after a cer-
tain time specified, the register should be sent to the registrar
of the diocese, there to be kept for preservation. He wall,
sure that this Bill had been introduced s°
by the Noble Lei?
with the best motives and intentions, and with a sincere lei'
to settle the question ; brit it was in his ( Sir Robert Peels)
opinion, liable to several objections.--( Hear, hear.) In the
first place, and this was a most powerful and formidable objec- •
tion to the whole Bill, it gave no satisfaction to the Dissenters
themselves.—( Hear, hear.) And accordingly it became the,
ground of various petitions to that House from Dissenters 01
all classes. He would read a part of one of the petitions pre-_
sented in the course of last Session, which would verify his
statement as to the objections felt by the Dissenters themselves
to the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the petitielle
in which it was stated, that the petitioners solemnly protests;
against the adoption of the Bill ; in the first place, beeau-s
they objected to the celebration of the ceremony of marriage
in places of worship exclusively ; in the sec end place,
Of
objected to the publication of the bans by the clergymen 0,
the Established Church ; and in the third place they objected
to the declaration and subscription of the bans by a clergyinaa
of the Established Church, before the marriake could tare
place. And they further objected to a provision which t
Noble Lord had introduced into his Bill, by which it was re-
quired that a notification should be placed upon some
spicuous part of the building to show the fact that th
chapel was licensed. Now it would be seen from thtse,
that the Dissenters objected, in the first place, to
ths
exclusive celebration of the marriage ceremony
of worship ; secondly, to the intervention of the clergye
man of the Established Church, in the matte,. of th..
publication of the bans ; and, thirdly, to declaration and sub
scription of a Minister of the Established Church, before the
ceremony of marriage could be solemnized ; and they also
clere
objected to the marriage being solemnized exclusively by
gymen, and to the issuing of the licences by the Surrogate (I
the Established Courts. The last of these matters objeetell
pee
to, was a mere matter of regulation ; but he ( Sir R.
thought that there were other and serious objections to
tb
Noble Lord's Bill, upon general grounds. The Noble Lora
in place
allowed the ceremony of marriage to be celebrated in all
place which had obtained a licence, in consequence of the pe-
tition of twenty householders. Now lie ( Sir R. Peel) leas,
sure, that all parties, however widely they might differ as was
their opinion in points of religion, would admit that it was of
the utmost importance to the interests of' society, as well as
the happiness of individuals, that ample provision should be
made against fraud and clandestine marriages.—(Hear, bearZe)
Dissenters were equally interested with the adherents of the
Established Church, in securing the peace and happiness _e°
their. families, as well as the general good of society ; and. 'se
provision was already made to prevent fraud and clandestenee
marriages among the adherents of the Established Church !e.
did not think he was going too far in saying that the Vise
senters themselves had a peculiar interest in having such frau_
carefully guarded against.—( Hear, hear.) If peculiar eel!
were not taken to guard against clandestine marriages, till
Dissenters would be exposed in an especial manner --are
particularly the females —to those tricks and frauds which tr
designing were so apt to practise ; and which not °elle
wrecked the happiness of the individuals, but, as it was enue.
clear, was most prejudicial to the interests of society in er°
neral.—( Hear, hear.) Now, by the Noble Lord's Bill, thebe
was not, in his opinion, a sufficient guard to prevent,tee
commission of fraud. In requiring the licensing of Me_
of worship, no notice was requisite, nor was any test oe
4_
mended. Any parties wishing to obtain a licence had 1:
thing to do but to make an application, signed by two
householders, to the euarter sessions; and on
2s. 6d., it became licensed, without the justices haying, tie
power of refusing. It was not even necessary that the,Pae,
licensed should be a separate house. If parties ashen ea.
cense for a room in which twenty persons met for the P
pose. of worship, on payment of 2s. 6d. the granting °,,,f
licence must follow ; and he begged of the n?tr e
to. observe how easy it was to get a licence, nitre
if any twenty persons made the application the instiee-
had no authority to deny it. He thought, therefore, t
where the licence was
risk that those frauds would take place.—( Hear, hear.) ?el;
with regard to the ceremony of marriage, the 1:4°„!.
Lord allowed it to be performed by any chosen itlinis'7e's
preacher or teacher. Now in some of the Dissenting blel
there were Ministers, and to these the Noble Lord's to
would apply ; but the object of the Legislature should he ir
Peereent
the
proceed so as to devise a mode of relief which would aPePpe
to all classes of Dissenters—(Hear.) Yet there were si-bee
classes to whom this provision would not apply at all, fli'. er )
had clergymen of a fixed or stationary character.—(H teet
Then, with regard to registration, the registry was to be et,
by the minister, preacher, or teacher of the Dissenting eliPtee,
The registry was not only to be in the writing of that mons big
preacher, or teacher, but it was also to be left for a time le ity
custody. Now he conceived that this gave no proper se:litre-0
for such an important object as that of registration, and
it would not be a means of making such reg istration effect tie
—(Hear hear.) But as the Bill had been objected to by
tee
•!cry persons for whose relief the Noble Lord had introdue;
it, it was the less necessary that he (the Chancellor of.ees
Exchequer) should recapitulate any of the other ohieeeetig-io
made to it—( Hear, hear.) He had referred to two ginu—tbe
which it had been proposed that relief should be given to
tie,
Dissenters—the first was by an alteration in the marriageis
remony ; the second, the mode adopted by the Noble Ler ,
his Bill, which was, that the bans should be published bier
clergyman of the Established Church, and that the mart be
might be solemnized by a Dissenting minister ; and as the
said before, the first of these plans was not admissible, an iyee
second had not been satisfactory to the Dissenters theels,ei be
It now remained to be considered what mode cotn'aea
devised which would give satisfaction to all parties! 0
at the same time be an indiscriminate mode of rehe lad
all classes of Dissenters. But the Noble Lord's ,Pe to
were not only unsatisfactory to the Dissenters, but and
the ministers of the Established Church—( Hear, hear, "„re eli-
They objected to their being the medium by which thFbt beminary steps might be taken in a ceremony which mfg rebus
completed by any person having a licence to preach' elovr
the Noble Lord's plan was objected to by all parties. or)
the principle which he (the Chancellor of the Exellecie
would propose to adopt would be this—and he propos to
because it appeared to him to be the most effective of 8 ebt'
plans proposed, and the least liable to the objections breoetiee
in opposition to former plans. He proposed that there Sher a
be two ceremonies of marriage—the one a civil, the nt"t the
religious ceremony.--( Hear, hear, hear.) His plan, ti!eetis
same time that it encouraged the celebration of the rejleetieg
ceremony, did not make it imperative upon those contra fee
marriage, nor as essential to the validity of the marriageeee be
proposed,. on the other hand, that the civil ceremony sheet fie -
essential to the validity of the marriage.—( Cheers./eely
would fain hope, though the religious ceremony was nose
tial, that that circumstance would not tend to divest ee...--
of its religious attributes. He believed that it would nh the
(Hear,.. hear.) He believed that those who went thrl loos
civil ceremony would, in most cases, superadd the relit
ceremony—( Hear, hear)—but he doubted whether it woe ore
have more real religion in it, if the superaddition et. l'theal-
left to the good feeling and discretion of the parties beer.)
selves, than if it were enforced by the law.—(Hear, shed
If the ceremony were not confined to the Esta state
Church, he could not see upon what grounds the
ewe,
sh.ould require that the religious ceremony should he the
so-
niaed at all._( Hear.) The object was to encourageewe it
lemnization of the religious ceremony, and it waseen'tirraryiaget°t
would be solemnized in all cases where it was not
the consciences of the parties contracting them ar
there.
but in that case it was not prescribed, and it was'ereoliP
fore, that he said, encourage the religious "religious
but not exact it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The rreeeg ta
ceremony might vary among the different sects acco
fey to
their several tenets. The same ceremony would not aPerrriage
Unitarians that would be performed to solemnize the in oy did
of another class of the Dissenters ; but still the eerell'ilDir pre-
net appear to lose any of the religious sanction which of tlie
viously had, merely by leaving it to the determinatiotieeee it
parties themselves by which of those forms they wool° he waS
solemnized.. In adopting this plan he was happy te,fi.nea was
acting in conformity to the provisions of a Bill %vele..
Mr' veggie
troduced into that House in 1827 (we believe by to tel,
e
Smith), and which proceeded in the House of Lords of
third reading, and would have passed but for the late P;iteiplee
the session at which it was brought forward. The qee 131
of that Bill were in exact conformity with the present
and .
that Bill the bans were to be published in the church ;before a
case both parties were Unitarians, they were to appear
magistrate, who was to be empowered to conclude the in "reeec-
and the magistrate was to give a certificate, urn the_,P Novi
tion of which the parties might claim to be registereoereeepe
this was exactly the principle of the law of Englana Poe Oa
to the Marriage Act which passed in 1754.—(
Common Law previous to that Act, marriage was strictly. rely
Hear.
civil contract, and did not require any ratification her 'ee of
gious ceremony.__( Hear, hear.) In the faniouse;!e-
-" Dalrymple v. Dalrymple," which was tried before T,e 010,
Liam Scott, the present Lord Stewell, that PrineeTied 1115
clearly laid down by the Learned Judge, and he suPP, $
own opinion by quoting that of Lord Holt, who 13.?"eirt' viere;
perfectly similar opinion. The words of Lord H°
of
.that " He agreed upon the whole that if a c.onera t_t's gooo_
riage were entered into per verba de prcesenti, Waseyeept
marriage, which could not be dissolved by any aerese;eresei;
that effect by the parties themselves ; for that seeh bse be!,
it. be efee!
was as much a marriage in the sight of God as if
solemnized in facie Ecclesice." And in another part aba
•or Per I/ A at
that a contract either per verba de prcesentz, could ass
0
,futuro, was so binding, that in such a case persone_ ces,
be punished as being guilty of fornication. Theo, tee'e, whie:
of Lord Fitzmaurice, the son of the Earl of Ker',liio Nob
occurred before the Court of Delegates in 173?,e;1/200
Lord and a young Lady had entered into an obbig
Iwo one
following words :—" We swear that ive ehalt In this' casie
another," and each party signed the obligatiere d a ce°
anvow
the Court found for the validity of the marriageeee case, wee
mission of review, which was petitioned for urn t
refused. This was the state of the law of this conatry 111

e Chaff
he same
the Ml-
had been
?claration
g e minvht
Lord's