Читать книгу A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3) - George Elliott Howard - Страница 49

Table of Contents

There were, however, serious defects in the act of 1753. It was conceived in a spirit of bigoted intolerance toward Roman Catholics and all dissenters—save only Jews and Quakers—who were thus forced against their consciences to accept the rites of the established church; and the law was far too rigid in matters of detail. The harsh treatment of dissenters is all the more remarkable because "their privileges were abridged" by the act; for previous to 1753 they had been at liberty to celebrate their marriages in their own chapels, without submitting to the ritual of the "church."[1416] It is significant that in the report of debates on the measure collected in the Parliamentary History not a single voice seems to be raised in favor of the general principle of toleration; though one ceases to be surprised by this fact when he remembers the disfranchisement of non-conformists and considers the shameful character of parliamentary representation which was then drawn largely from rotten or pocket boroughs under the control of a corrupt oligarchy.[1417] During more than fourscore years repeated efforts were made in vain to gain relief for dissenters.[1418] The Unitarians[1419] were particularly active in the struggle for religious and civil liberty. The bill of 1826-27 introduced by William Smith in their behalf is especially worthy of notice, because in the committee it took the form of a provision for civil marriage before a justice of the peace, leading to a very lively discussion. The Marquis of Lansdowne defended the measure, not merely in the interest of the dissenters who by the existing law were forced to do violence to their consciences, but also in behalf of the clergy of the established church who should be relieved of the necessity of administering a religious rite for those receiving it only under compulsion.[1420] On the other hand, the bill was opposed, not only on the old ground of violating the sanctity of matrimony, but also because the clergy, by being required to proclaim the banns in such cases and to certify the same to the justice, would thus suffer humiliation; and for the reason that the proposal smacked too much of the revolutionary ordinance of Oliver Cromwell.[1421] Every attempt to gain justice for the dissenters failed until finally a signal victory for civil institutions was won in the epoch-making statute of 1836.

The long struggle to remedy the formal defects of the Hardwicke act met with somewhat earlier success. Much injustice and inconvenience grew out of the provision that banns must be proclaimed in churches or chapels where hitherto they had "usually been published." A stop was thus put to legal celebration in many places, especially in London; and "it was found that even St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey were included in this prohibition, as no publication of banns had ever taken place in them."[1422] Accordingly in 1781 a marriage solemnized in Buerlyhill Chapel, "erected in 1765 and then duly consecrated, and in which divine service had been publicly and regularly celebrated ever since, and wherein banns of marriage had been often published and marriages celebrated previous to the marriage in question," was annulled by the court of King's Bench.[1423] An act was immediately passed to validate such marriages already solemnized;[1424] and this was followed by various other statutes to legalize later marriages of the same kind.[1425] More serious were the consequences of the clause making the express consent of parent or guardian in case of license absolutely essential to the valid marriage of minors. Through disregard of this provision, and for various other trivial deviations from the letter of the statute, many harsh cases of injustice arose. "A man was enabled to marry a woman solemnly in the face of the church, to live with her and acknowledge her publicly as his wife, and have issue by her,—and 25 years afterwards to bring a suit for annulling the marriage, on the ground that he himself had falsely and fraudulently sworn, in order to obtain the license, that she was 21 years of age, when she was in fact two months younger."[1426] In another case,[1427] "where a father had gone to America and was supposed dead, and the mother had given her consent, but the father had no knowledge of the marriage, it was declared void after eighteen years' cohabitation;"[1428] for the father's consent, if living, was absolutely necessary. Nullity was even declared in one instance[1429] "because the testamentary guardians who had consented were appointed by a will which turned out to be invalid because attested by only one witness."[1430]

At length, after the nullification of marriage on technical or trivial grounds had become a "public scandal" and an intolerable hardship to individuals,[1431] a remedy was found in the act of 4 George IV., c. 76, by which so much of the Hardwicke act as had not already been superseded[1432] was repealed; and new and juster rules were substituted.[1433] But this statute, whose more important provisions will hereafter appear, gave no relief to Roman Catholics or dissenters. To effect this, after various futile attempts, the civil-marriage law of 1836 was enacted,[1434] simultaneously with another creating a new system of registration.[1435] These three measures, with a few later modifications or additions, constitute the present law of England relating to the celebration and registration of marriages. An analysis of their leading provisions will now be presented.[1436]

It will be convenient first to notice the main features of the system of registration.[1437] For the entire kingdom is appointed by the lord treasurer and the lords commissioners of the treasury a registrar-general whose office is in London and Westminster. Below the general registrar of births, deaths, and marriages are the "superintendent registrars," one in each union or parish, appointed by the Board of Guardians of the Poor; or, in default of such appointment, they may be nominated by the general registrar. The post is usually filled, however, by the clerk of the Board of Guardians. Below the superintendent registrars are the registrars of the districts. These are of two kinds: the registrar of births and deaths, appointed in the same way as the superintendent registrars; and the registrars of marriages, nominated by the superintendent of the union subject to the approval of the guardians,[1438] or of the registrar-general, as provided by a later act.[1439]

Co-ordinate with the civil registrars of marriages for the district are the ministers of the Church of England, and the ministers or accredited officers of other denominations, each of whom is required every quarter to transmit abstracts of all registrations to the superintendent, who, in his turn, reports to the registrar-general. The division of the union into districts, which usually correspond to the parishes, is the duty of the guardians, subject to the approval of the registrar-general.

Marriage within the Church of England is regulated by the statute of 4 George IV., c. 76, and may be solemnized in the parish church or a chapel licensed by the bishop,[1440] after publication of banns for three successive Sundays at morning service; or on production of the certificate of a superintendent registrar, which is equivalent to banns.[1441] Parent or guardian may forbid the marriage of minors, but in case of banns express consent is not required. License in place of banns may be granted by the archbishop, bishop, or other authority, but only for solemnization within the church of the parish in which one of the parties has resided "for the space of fifteen days preceding." Before "a licence can be granted an oath must be taken as to the fact of residence;" that there is no legal impediment; and that the consent of parent or guardian has been obtained, if either of the parties is under twenty-one years of age.[1442] The "marriage must be celebrated within three months after banns or licence, and between the hours[1443] of eight and twelve in the morning."[1444] Care is taken to avoid the hardships arising from the rigidness of the Hardwicke act. "The penalty of nullity" is "confined to the case of persons wilfully procuring the celebration of marriage without due publication of banns, or without a licence from a person having authority to grant the same, or by any person not in holy orders, or elsewhere than in a church or chapel wherein banns" may "be lawfully published." The want of consent of parent or guardian, in case of minors, does not invalidate a marriage by license; but "in the event of any fraud practiced to procure the contract, the guilty party" forfeits "all property accruing from the marriage."[1445]

The institution of banns, as already seen, is the ancient device of the church to secure publicity.[1446] During the ages it has served a useful purpose, though from its very nature, even under the most stringent regulations, it is capable of serious abuse. But there are unmistakable signs that it has about run its course and must soon yield to more effective methods, such as those prescribed by the civil-marriage act. The "unsuitableness of banns to the present state of society," remarks Mr. Hammick, appears as early as 1868 in the report of the Marriage Law Commissioners,[1447] They say that "in populous places it seems universally agreed that no real publicity is obtained by banns, which afford no safe-guard against improvidence, illegality, or fraud, and are frequently, from their great number, an inconvenient and unseemly interruption to divine service." The old sentiment against publicity is a strong motive for evasion. "The evidence which we have received," add the commissioners, "abundantly proves that the dislike of this mode of publication tends to promote clandestinity rather than to prevent it, by inducing many persons to resort for marriage to places where they are unknown."[1448] Nor does the testimony against the efficiency of banns come from lay sources alone. The bishop of Durham, in this same report, declares that "at present there is no punishment to any party making a false statement" in order to have banns published in a parish where he does not reside; "whilst it is quite impossible for the clergyman, who is now by law punishable for celebrating such marriages, to ascertain the falsehood of such statements, as his time, if his parish be large, is entirely occupied by his other necessary duties." Hence he believes that it would be "advantageous to assimilate the law to that which regulates the notice of banns at the registry, and to make a false statement in either case perjury."[1449] In like spirit the bishop of Ely refers to the difficulty of the clergyman's making suitable examination. "All such inquiries," he says, "are inevitably left to the parish clerk, whose interest it is to inquire as little as possible. Hence, if any persons desire to contract an illegal marriage, they choose one of the populous parishes of our large towns, where they readily escape notice."[1450] The uselessness of banns in such places is further made very clear "not only by ninety-nine couples being asked on one Sunday at St. Pancras, but also by 189 couples being asked in the cathedral church at Manchester on the 11th December, 1864, and 202 couples on the 10th December, 1865," while on this last-named day at St. Mary's, Lambeth, the banns of 125 couples were published. In many of these cases, merely the names were mentioned, "unaccompanied by any announcement of condition—whether bachelors, widows," or spinsters.[1451]

The civil-marriage act of 1836 owes its adoption mainly to the influence and exertion of Lord John Russell, by whom it was proposed. In a measure, however, the way had been cleared for it by the bill of the preceding year introduced by Sir Robert Peel. This was received in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, showing that the period of harsh intolerance was fast approaching its end.[1452] The bill failed of passage, mainly because as a half-way measure it did not satisfy the non-conformists. For it permitted the civil form of marriage only to those declaring their unwillingness to accept the established rites; and thus, it was asserted, a stigma would be put upon the dissenters to whom matrimony was not less holy than it was to the adherents of the English church.[1453] Moreover, the magistrate of the hundred before the marriage was solemnized was required to send the certificate to the clergyman of the parish for registration.[1454] But it is highly significant that in the debate proposals were made involving the essential elements of the two great measures of the next year. A system of civil registration of births, deaths, and marriages was suggested; while it was urged, either that the civil form of solemnization should be made optional for all, not merely restricted to non-conformists; or else it should be made obligatory for all, leaving it free to the parties in every case, after the lay ceremony, to avail themselves of the rites of their own religious body.[1455]

Nevertheless the act of 1836 was adopted only after a prolonged contest in the House of Commons.[1456] By this statute the religious celebration prescribed by the Anglican rubric is preserved, and two additional methods of procedure are created: (1) by certificate of the superintendent registrar without license; (2) or by such certificate with a license.

When procedure is by the first method,[1457] notice must be given "to the superintendent registrar of the district within which the parties shall have dwelt for not less than seven days" previous. This notice is then entered in a marriage notice book "open at all reasonable times without fee to all persons desirous of inspecting the same;" and thereafter for twenty-one days the notice or a true copy is to be suspended or affixed "in some conspicuous place in the office" of the superintendent.[1458] "In the body or at the foot" of the notice a "solemn declaration" as to residence, necessary consent, and the absence of impediment of any kind must be subscribed by one of the parties.[1459] After twenty-one days,[1460] if no valid objection be filed by parents or others, a certificate is issued by the superintendent, and the marriage may be celebrated at any time within three months of the entry of the notice.[1461] After issuing the certificate the marriage may be celebrated in either of the following forms: (1) Before the superintendent registrar, in the presence of a district registrar and two witnesses—a mere declaration of assent and no religious rites whatever being required. (2) In any registered building by a minister of any sect according to the religious rites of the same. Here also the registrar of the district and two witnesses must be present. (3) According to the rites of the Jews and Quakers in duly certified buildings. A building may be registered by the superintendent registrar on receipt of a written petition from "any proprietor or trustee," accompanied by a certificate signed in duplicate by twenty householders at the least, that such building has been used by them during one year at the least as their usual place of public worship and that they are desirous that the place shall be registered.[1462] (4) Marriages may also be solemnized by certificate in lieu of banns in an Anglican church or chapel, if the consent of the minister be obtained.[1463] In all cases the place of marriage must be mentioned in the certificate, and the celebration must occur between the hours of 8 in the forenoon and 3 in the afternoon.[1464]

If the parties wish to avoid delay and so great publicity, they may proceed by the superintendent's certificate and license. These may be obtained on one[1465] full day's notice to the registrar of "the district in which one of the persons resides, together with a declaration that he or she has resided for fifteen days therein, that there is no impediment, and that the necessary consents if any have been obtained. The notice is not exhibited in the registrar's office."[1466] After obtaining the license, the marriage may be celebrated in either of the first three modes above mentioned; but no superintendent's license may be issued for a marriage according to the forms of the English church, that right being still an "ecclesiastical monopoly." Any person guilty of wilfully making any false statement in procuring certificate or license is liable to the penalties of perjury;[1467] and if any persons "knowingly and willfully intermarry," in any place other than that mentioned in the certificate or without notice, certificate, or license, as required by law, or in the absence of the registrar where his presence is required, their marriage, except in certain specified cases, is null and void.[1468] False statements as to consent subjects the offender to the penalties of perjury, but does not invalidate the marriage.

As to the form of civil contract, it is only essential that somewhere in the ceremony the following declarations be introduced. Each of the parties must say:

"I do solemnly declare, that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, A. B., may not be joined in matrimony to C. D."

And each must say to the other:

"I call upon these witnesses here present to witness that I, A. B., do take thee, C. D., to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)."[1469]

Thus English marriage ends, as it began, in a simple contract; but the state has succeeded in imposing upon it the condition of publicity—a task which the church first attempted, but failed to accomplish.[1470]