Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

difficulties could only be completely overcome by regarding marriage, for all legal purposes, as a civil contract, accompanied by a civil registry; but he abstained from making such a proposal, in deference to the feelings of the church and other religious bodies. The bill, in such a form as this, could not be expected to satisfy dissenters; and it was laid aside.2 It was clear that a measure of more extensive scope would be required, to settle a question of so much delicacy.

Sir Robert

ters' Mar

riage Bill, March 17th, 1835.

---

In the next session, Sir Robert Peel, having profited by this unsuccessful experiment, offered another measPeel's Dissen- ure, based on different principles. Reverting to the principle of the law, prior to Lord Hardwicke's Act of 175 which viewed marriage, for certain purposes at least, as a civil contract, he proposed that dissenters objecting to the services of the church should enter into a civil contract of marriage before a magistrate, to be followed by such religious ceremonies elsewhere, as the parties might approve. For the publication of bans he proposed to substitute a notice to the magistrate, by whom also a certifi cate was to be transmitted to the clergyman of the parish, for registration. The liberal spirit of this measure secured it a favorable reception; but its provisions were open to insuperable objections. To treat the marriage of members of the church as a religious ceremony, and the marriage of dissenters as a mere civil contract, apart from any religious sanction, raised an offensive distinction between the two classes of marriages. And again, the ecclesiastical registry of a civil contract, entered into by dissenters, was a very obvious anomaly. Lord John Russell expressed his own conviction that no measure would be satisfactory until a general system of civil registration could be established, a subject to which he had already directed his attention. The progress of this bill was interrupted by the resignation of Sir R. Peel. 1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxi. 776. 2 Com. Journ., lxxxix. 226. 8 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxvi. 1073.

1835.

The new ministry, having consented to its second reading, allowed it to drop; but measures were promised May 224, in the next session for the civil registry of births, marriages, and deaths, and for the marriage of June 29th. dissenters.1

Register of

riages, and

12th, 1836.

Early in the next session, Lord John Russell introduced two bills to carry out these objects. The first was for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths. births, mar Its immediate purpose was to facilitate the grant- deaths. Feb. ing of relief to dissenters; but it also contemplated other objects of state policy, of far wider operation. An accurate record of such events is important as evidence in all legal proceedings; and its statistical and scientific value cannot be too highly estimated. The existing registry being ecclesiastical took no note of births, but embraced the baptisms, marriages, and burials, which had engaged the services of the church. It was now proposed to establish a civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths, for which the officers connected with the new poor-law administration afforded great facilities. The record of births and deaths was to be wholly civil; the record of marriages was to be made by the minister performing the ceremony, and transmitted to the registrar. The measure further provided for a general register office in London, and a division of the country into registration districts.2

Marriage

The Marriage Bill was no less comprehensive. The marriages of members of the Church of England were Dissenters' not affected, except by the necessary addition of a Bill, Feb. civil registry. The publication of bans, or license, 12th. 1836. was continued, unless the parties themselves preferred giving notice to a registrar. The marriages of dissenters were allowed to be solemnized in their own chapels, registered for that purpose, after due notice to the registrar of the district; while those few dissenters who desired no religious ceremony,

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxix. 11.

2 lbid., xxxi. 367.

were enabled to enter into a civil contract before the superintendent registrar. Measures, so comprehensive and well considered, could not fail to obtain the approval of Parliament. Every religious sect was satisfied: every object of state policy attained. The church, indeed, was called upon to make great sacrifices; but she made them with noble liberality. Her clergy bore their pecuniary losses without a murmur, for the sake of peace and concord. Fees were cheerfully renounced with the services to which they were incident. The concessions, so gracefully made, were such as dissenters had a just right to claim, and the true interests of the church were concerned in no longer withholding.

Dissenters'

In baptism and marriage, the offices of the church were now confined to her own members, or to such as burials. sought them willingly. But in death, they were still needed by those beyond her communion. The church claimed no jurisdiction over the graves of her nonconformist brethren; but every parish burial-place was hers. The churchyard, in which many generations of churchmen slept, was no less sacred than the village-church itself; yet here only could the dissenter find his last resting-place. Having renounced the communion of the church while living, he was restored to it in death. The last offices of Christian burial were performed over him, in consecrated ground, by the clergyman of the parish, and according to the ritual of the church. Nowhere was the painfulness of schism more deeply felt, on either side. The clergyman reluctantly performed the solemn service of his church, in presence of mourners who seemed to mock it, even in their sorrow. Nay, some of the clergy, having scruples, not warranted by the laws of their church,-even refused Christian burial to those who

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxxi. 367; 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, 86, amended by 1 Vict. c. 22. In 1852 the registration of chapels for all other purposes as well as marriages was transferred to the registrar-general. — 15 & 16 Vict. c. 36.

had not received baptism at the hands of a priest in holy orders. On his side the dissenter recoiled from the consecrated ground and the offices of the church. Bitterness and discord followed him to the grave, and frowned over his ashes.

In country parishes this painful contact of the church with nonconformity was unavoidable; but in populous towns, dissenters were earnest in providing themselves with separate burial-grounds and unconsecrated parts of cemeteries.2 And latterly they have further sought for their own ministers the privilege of performing the burial-service in the parish churchyard, with the permission of the incumbent. In Ire land, ministers of all denominations have long had access to the parish burial-grounds. Such a concession was necessary to meet the peculiar relations of the population of that country to the church; but in England, it has not hitherto found favor with the legislature.

dissenters to

In 1834, another conflict arose between the church and dissenters, when the latter claimed to participate, Admission of with churchmen, in the benefits of those great the Univer schools of learning and orthodoxy,— the English sities, 1834. universities. The position of dissenters was not the same in both universities. At Oxford, subscription to the thirty-nine articles had been required on matriculation, since 1581; and dissenting students had thus been wholly excluded from that university. It was a school set apart for members of the church. Cambridge had been less exclusive. It had admitted nonconformists to its studies, and originally even to its degrees. But since 1616, it had required subscription on

1 Kemp v. Wickes, 1809, Phil., iii. 264; Escott v. Masten, 1842; Notes of Eccl. Cases, i. 552; Titchmarsh v. Chapman, 1844; Ibid., iii. 370.

2 Local Cemetery Acts, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, § 7. The Bishop of Carlisle having refused to consecrate a cemetery unless the unconsecrated part was separated by a wall, the legislature interfered to prevent so invidious a separation.-20 & 21 Vict. c. 81, § 11.

8 Feb. 19th and April 24th, 1861 (Sir Morton Peto); Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., clxi. 650; clxii. 1051; May 2d, 1862; Ibid., clxvi. 1189.

45 Geo. IV. c. 25.

proceeding to degrees. Dissenters, while participating in all its studies, were debarred from its honors and endowments, its scholarships, degrees, and fellowships, and from any share in the government of the university. From this exclusion resulted a quasi civil disability, for which the universities were not responsible. The inns of court admitted graduates to the bar in three years, instead of five; graduates articled to attorneys were admitted to practise after three years; the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons admitted. none but graduates as fellows. The exclusion of dissenters from universities was confined to England. Since 1793, the University of Dublin had been thrown open to Catholics and dissenters, who were admitted to degrees in arts and medicine; and in the universities of Scotland there was no test to exclude dissenters.

Petitions to both Houses.

1834.

Several petitions concerning these claims elicited full discussion in both Houses. Of these petitions, the most remarkable was signed by sixty-three members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, distinguished in science and literature, and of eminent position in the university. It prayed that dissenters should be admitted to take the degrees of bachelors, masters, or doctors in arts, March 21st, law, and physic. Earl Grey, in presenting it to the House of Lords, opened the case of the dissenters in a wise and moderate speech, which was followed by a fair discussion of the conflicting rights of the church and dissenters. In the Commons, Mr. Spring Rice ably March 24th. represented the case of the dissenters, which was also supported by Mr. Secretary Stanley and Lord Palmerston, on behalf of the Government; and opposed by Mr. Goulburn, Sir R. Inglis, and Sir Robert Peel. Petitions against the claims of dissenters were also discussed, particularly a counter-petition, signed by 259 resident members of the University of Cambridge.

1 33 Geo. III. c. 21 (Irish).

2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxii. 497.

8 Ibid., 570, 623, 674.

4 Ibid., 1009.

« AnteriorContinuar »