by his JEW BILL and his MARRIAGE BILL, for both of which I think he deserves credit. From the fatuous fears and furious cries which the former occasioned, it has generally been represented as 66 a bill by its own vigour at once to confer all the rights of natural-born British subjects on all foreign Jews who might set foot on English ground;" whereas it merely allowed bills to be brought in for naturalizing Jews without their having taken the sacrament of the Lord's supper according to the rites of the Church of England, or, in other words, to allow that a Jew might be naturalized by act of parliament. After some sharp debates, the bill passed both Houses, and received the royal assent; but, from there being then no reports of parliamentary proceedings printed, its nature was so grossly misrepresented, that great odium was cast upon the Chancellor as its author; and the Bishop of Norwich, who voted for it, soon after, holding a confirmation, was called upon by the mob"to administer the rite of circumcision," and a paper was affixed to the church doors, stating that "next day being Saturday, his Lordship would confirm the Jews, and on the day following the Christians." Such was the ferment in the nation that ministers became alarmed-particularly as a general election was approaching, and in a very dastardly manner they agreed to abandon this measure, which, if persisted in, might have introduced, upon reflection, a more liberal feeling into the public mind, and accelerated by a century the religious freedom which we now enjoy.* Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, with considerable modifications and improvements, remains in force, and regulates in England the most important of all contracts,-upon which civil society itself depends. Hitherto the old canon law had prevailed, according to which a valid marriage was constituted either by the mere consent of the parties, or by the presence of a priest in orders, at any time or place, without the sanction of parents or guardians, although one or both of the parties might be under age, and without any registration or public act affording the means of knowing whether such a marriage had been contracted. This does seem to me a very defective 14 Parl. Hist. 1365-1442; 15 Parl. Hist. 91-163. By way of apology, Lord Hardwicke said " However much the people may be misled, yet in a free country I do not think an unpopular measure ought to be obstinately persisted in. We should treat the people as a skilful and humane physician would treat his patient; if they nauseate the salutary draught we have prescribed, we should think of some other remedy, or we should delay administering the prescription till time or change of circumstances has removed the nausea." A.D. 1753. HIS MARRIAGE BILL. 261 state of the law, although it exists in the northern part of the island, and is there defended by sensible men. It is of importance for the protection of minors that they should not be permitted to enter into this contract by their own mere fantasy, when they are wholly incapacitated to enter into others of the most trifling nature; and it is important to society in general, that a form-simple and notorious should be specified, which shall be essential, and which shall be sufficient, for constituting the contract, and the evidence of which shall be open to all mankind. Although we reject the Roman Catholic doctrine that marriage is a sacrament, it is highly desirable that a religious service should accompany the celebration of it, to create a deep sense of the solemnity of the obligation thereby contracted; but as some may object to such a service, and all should be permitted to marry, it ought not to be considered indispensable. Various striking instances of the inconveniences and hardships resulting from the then existing law had recently occurred. Young heirs and heiresses, scarcely grown out of infancy, had been inveigled into mercenary and disgraceful matches; and persons living together as husband and wife for many years, and become the parents of a numerous offspring, were pronounced to be in a state of concubinage, their children being bastardised, because the father had formerly entangled himself in some promise which amounted to a pre-contract, and rendered his subsequent marriage a nullity. În the public prisons-particularly in the Fleet-there were degraded and profligate parsons ready, for a small fee, to marry all persons at all hours there, or to go when sent for to perform the ceremony in taverns or in brothels. The public attention had been particularly drawn to the subject by a case of very flagrant oppression which had appeared on the hearing of an appeal before the House of Lords, and the Judges were ordered to prepare a bill to remedy the evils complained of. Their bill did not please the Chancellor, who himself undertook the task with great earnestness. His own performance did not deserve applause. He declared null all marriages which were not celebrated by a priest in orders, either under banns or licence, declaring in the case of minors the licence void without the consent of parents or guardians-the banns to be for three successive Sundays in the parish church—and the granting of ordinary and special licences to be subject to certain regulations the ceremony to be performed by a priest according to the liturgy of the Church of England. The first great blot upon the measure was, that it required Roman Catholics, Dissenters, and others who might have serious scruples of conscience against being married according to the prescribed service (the least felicitous in the English liturgy) to submit to it, or debarred them from matrimony altogether. Another serious defect was, that no provision was made by it respecting the marriage out of England of persons domiciled in England, so as to prevent the easy evasion of it by a trip to Gretna Green. The measure was likewise highly objectionable in making no provision for the marriage of illegitimate children -who had no parents recognised by law, and could only have guardians by an application to the Court of Chancery,—and in declaring marriages which were irregular by reason of unintentional mistakes in banns or licences absolutely void, although the parties might live long together as man and wife, having a numerous issue considered legitimate until the discovery of the irregularity. Lord Hardwicke laid the bill on the table, and explained its provisions at the commencement of the session. On the second reading, the Duke of Bedford made a speech against it; but it passed easily through the Lords. In the Commons, however, it experienced the most furious opposition, particularly from Henry Fox, who was supposed to feel very deeply on the subject, because he himself had run off with Lady Caroline Lennox, eldest daughter of the Duke of Richmond, and married her without the consent of her family. I cannot compliment him, or the other opposers of the bill, on the topics they employed. Instead of pointing out its real defects, which in practice were found oppressive and mischievous, they absurdly denied the right of Parliament to legislate upon the subject; they dwelt upon the aristocratic tendency of the bill; they denounced it as leading to vice and immorality; they prophesied that it would thin our population, and endanger our existence as a nation. Fox, who kept the bill in committee many nights, became so heated by his own opposition to it against Murray, the Solicitor-General, and other lawyers who defended it, that he inveighed bitterly against all lawyers and their jargon. He even indulged in a personal attack upon its author, whom he designated "the great MUFTI," whom he accused of pride and arrogance, and whose motives in bringing it forward he described as selfish A.D. 1753. HIGH STEWARD OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. 263 and sordid." On a subsequent evening he made an apology for these expressions, and declared his high respect for the learning and integrity of the noble and learned Lord he was supposed to have alluded to. The bill at last passed the Commons by a majority of 125 to 56, and was sent back to the Lords. When the amendments were to be considered, the MUFTI resolved to have his revenge; and as the parliament was to be prorogued the following day, he knew that he was safe from a rejoinder. In a most unusual manner, he read his observations from a paper which he held in his hand, as if he were afraid to trust himself to express his excited feelings; and he commented, with much warmth and asperity, on the conduct of Fox, whom he designated as "a dark, gloomy, and insidious genius, an engine of personality and faction;"-thus concluding his philippic: "I despise the invective, and I despise the retractation; I despise the scurrility, and I despise the adulation." Fox, who had that evening attended some ladies to Vauxhall, being soon told by a good-natured friend how he had been abused in the House of Lords, gathered some young members of parliament round him, and told them, with great eagerness, that he wished the session had lasted a little longer, as, in that case, "he would have paid off the Lord Chancellor with interest." y About this time Lord Hardwicke was elected High Steward of the University of Cambridge. In his address to the ViceChancellor and Senate on this occasion, he said, ‘Though I had not the happiness to receive my education among you, yet my high sense of and value for this university have manifestly appeared by committing so many of my sons to your care." u I suppose it was from this vituperation that the vulgar said out of doors that the Chancellor was afraid his own children would form some low connection in marriagewhereas they were all already married into the first families. * According to Cooksey, in the warmth of his invective he called his antagonist " that bad, black man."-Cooks. 103. y 15 St. Tr. 84-86. It is curious how this hatred of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Bill descended to Henry Fox's posterity. His son, the celebrated Charles James, several times abused it in the House of Commons; and I myself have frequently heard his grandson, the late Lord Holland, in private, express 66 high disapprobation of it-still adhering to the old doctrine, that marriage should be contracted when and where and how the parties please—and therefore still censuring the last Marriage Bill, which I had the honour to assist in framing, and which I consider quite perfect. I excuse a churchman who says that the Church alone ought to lay down regulations for marriages, and judge of their validity; but I cannot understand how a statesman who allows it to be a civil contract can deny that the manner of entering into it may be regulated by law as much as the manner of entering into a contract to purchase goods or to let land. 2 15th June, 1753. The session of 1754 passed over without a single debate in the House of Lords; but, in the midst of the profoundA.D. 1754. est quiet, a storm of short duration was suddenly raised by the death of the prime minister, Mr. Pelham. Till his brother could decently appear, Lord Hardwicke was called into council by the King, and, according to his own account, he was for some days prime minister. A letter which he then wrote to Archbishop Herring shows that the arrangement was left entirely to him, "so that he did not recommend any person who had flown in the King's face" (meaning Mr. Fox); and discloses his intrigues with the leaders of different parties.a Soon after, he wrote an interesting account of this crisis to Mr. Pitt. After apologising for not sooner replying to a communication he had received from that statesman, he proceeds : "Besides this, I have lived in such continual hurry ever since the day of our great misfortune, Mr. Pelham's death, Ille dies, quem semper acerbum, that I have no time for correspondence. "The general confusion called upon somebody to step forth; and the Duke of Newcastle's overwhelming affliction and necessary confinement threw it upon me. I was a kind of minister ab aratro, I mean the Chancery plough, and am not displeased to be returned to it, laborious as it is to hold. I never saw the King under such deep concern since the Queen's death. His Majesty seemed to be unresolved; professed to have no favourite for the important employment vacant, and declared that he would be advised by his cabinet council, with the Duke of Devonshire added to them." In a few days the Duke of Newcastle was placed at the head of the Treasury, and Lord Hardwicke was again secure in his office of Chancellor, and, if possible, with more influence. a March 14, 1754. b The writer proceeds at great length to try to persuade Mr. Pitt that he had been labouring to bring him into office; and having stated the opposing difficulties, he thus concludes:-" I agree that this falls short of the mark, but it gives encouragement. It is more than a colour for acquiescence in the eyes of the world; it is a demonstration of fact. No ground arises from hence to think of retirement rather than of courts and business. We have all of us our hours wherein we wish for those otia tuta; and I have mine frequently: but I have that opinion of your wisdom, of your concern for the public, of your regard and affection for your friends, that I will not suffer myself to doubt that you will continue to take an active part. There never was a fairer field in the House of Commons for such abilities, and I flatter myself that the execution of them will complete what is now left imperfect."-Lord Hardwicke to Mr. Pitt, 2nd April, 1754. |