clergyman of the church, with a service obnoxious to their consciences; and even their dead could not obtain a Christian burial, except by the offices of the church. Even apart from religious scruples upon these matters, the enforced attendance of dissenters at the services of the church was a badge of inferiority and dependence, in the eye of the law. Nor was it without evils and embarrassments to the church herself. To perform her sacred offices for those who denied their sanctity, was no labour of love to the clergy. The marriage ceremony had sometimes provoked remonstrances; and the sacred character of all these services was impaired when addressed to unwilling ears, and used as a legal form, rather than a religious ceremony. It is strange that such grievances had not been redressed even before dissenters had been invested with civil privileges. The law had not originally designed to inflict them but simply assuming all the subjects of the realm to be members of the Church of England, had made no provision for exceptional cases of conscience. Yet when the oppression of the marriage law had been formerly exposed,' intolerant Parliaments had obstinately refused relief. It was reserved for the reformed Parliament to extend to all religious sects entire freedom of conscience, coupled with great improvements in the general law of registration. As the church alone performed the religious services incident to all baptisms, marriages, and deaths; so was she entrusted with the sole management and custody of the registers. The relief of dissenters, Supra, p. 151. 1 therefore, involved a considerable interference with the privileges of the church, which demanded a judicious treatment. The marriage law was first approached. In 1834, Dissenters' Lord John Russell,-to whom dissenters Marriage Bill, Feb. 25th, already owed so much,-introduced a bill 1834. to permit dissenting ministers to celebrate marriages in places of worship licensed for that purpose. It was proposed, however, to retain the accustomed publication of bans in church, or a licence. Such marriages were to be registered in the chapels where they were celebrated. There were two weak points in this measure, of which Lord John himself was fully sensible,—the publication of bans, and the registry. These 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.' It was clear that a measure of more extensive scope would be required, to settle a question of so much delicacy. Sir Robert Dissenters' In the next session, Sir Robert Peel, having profited by this unsuccessful experiment, offered another measure, based on different March 17th, principles. Reverting to the principle of the law, prior to Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1754, which viewed marriage, for certain purposes Bill. 1835. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxi. 776. 2 Com. Journ., lxxxix. 226. 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 certificate was to be transmitted to the clergyman of the parish for registration. The liberal spirit of this measure secured it a favourable 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. The new ministry, having May 22nd, consented to its second reading, allowed it 1835. to drop but measures were promised in the next session for the civil registry of births, June 29th. marriages, and deaths, and for the marriage of dissenters.2 Early in the next session, Lord John Russell in Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 1073. 2 Ibid., 3rd Ser., xxix. 11. Register Feb. 12th, 1836. troduced two bills to carry out these objects. The first was for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths. Its immediate purpose was to and deaths, facilitate the granting 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.' The Marriage Bill was no less comprehensive. The Dissenters' marriages of members of the Church of England were not affected, except by the necessary addition of a civil registry. The publication of bans, or licence, was continued, unless the parties themselves preferred giving notice to a registrar. The marriages of dissenters were allowed to be solemnised in their own chapels, registered for that purpose, after due notice to the registrar of the 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxxi. 367. district; while those few dissenters who desired no religious ceremony, were enabled to enter into a civil contract before the superintendent registrar.1 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 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 no longer in withholding. In baptism and marriage, the offices of the church were now confined to her own members, or Dissenters' to such as sought them willingly. But in burials. 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 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd 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 registrargeneral.-15 & 16 Vict. c. 36. VOL. III. |