COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 April 1863)

§ MR. BUTT
said, this first clause would have the effect of making the law of Ireland different from that of England. It was a great mistake to suppose that there was at present any very essential difference between the marriage law of Ireland and England. In England there were three modes adopted. In the first place, persons might be married by the clergymen of the Established Church; secondly, they might be married by the registrar in his own office; and thirdly, they could be married in any licensed Dissenting place of worship. The law in Ireland was the same so far as those three modes of performing the marriage ceremony were concerned. Still there was a difference affecting Dissenters which ought not to exist. In Ireland, before a marriage was celebrated, notice was given to the registrar, who also gave notice to the board of guardians, in order that the circumstance might be made public. That law had been common to both England and Ireland, but it had been repealed so far as England was concerned, and he did not himself see any objection to its being repealed in Ireland, if securities were given, which would have the effect of preventing clandestine marriages. At a future stage of the Bill he should propose the insertion of clauses which would make the law the same in Ireland as in England. He wished to know from the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Bill, what security it would give against clandestine marriages? It appeared to him that the law ought to be assimilated to that of England, and that the parties ought to be required to verify their statement to the registrar.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
thought that it was hardly possible to assimilate exactly the law of England and Ireland on this particular matter. The laws of the two countries had not kept pace with each other, and a system of things had grown up in Ireland which made it impossible to extend exactly the same rule to England as to Ireland. The Presbyterians had the advantage given to them of being able to 546 marry by their own ministers; but this privilege was not extended to any other denomination of Dissenters from the Established Church. This was a state of things which the Dissenters of Ireland could hardly be content with. Their grievance was admitted, and their demands, urged from year to year, had been as reasonable as could be expected. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had not fully considered the provisions of the Bill. The 22nd clause of the Act of 1844 was embodied in this Bill, and in that manner sufficient security was taken in regard to declarations. In the same way the registration of places of worship was provided for by the incorporation in the Bill of the 27th clause of the same Act. He quite agreed, that if sufficient security were not taken in the Bill on these points, it would be necessary to take it by some additional words.

MR. DAWSON
said, there was nobody in the North of Ireland more desirous of seeing the marriage law of Ireland put on a clear and intellible footing than the members of the Presbyterian Church.

§ MR. MACDONOGH
pointed out that there was a schedule containing a form of declaration, and a clause which fixed a penalty for making a false declaration. The Bill contained sufficient provisions to prevent clandestine marriages, and it had met with the complete approval of the Wesleyans and Independent Congregations of Ireland.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
was satisfied that the Bill contained all necessary securities; but he was sure that the promoters of it would willingly accept any Amendment which might be proposed to make this more certain.

§ MR. BUTT
said, the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Bill (Sir Edward Grogan) had taken from the English Act the first portion of the declaration which was required to be made before a marriage was celebrated, but had omitted the most solemn part, and the part which persons would consider in conscience equivalent to an oath. If he should be informed by the hon. Baronet, that when they came to the schedule the declaration contained in the English Act would be inserted in the present Bill in its entirety, he should offer no further opposition to the clause.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, it was their desire to relieve Dissenters from the grievances which they laboured under from the passing of the Act of 1844. He pointed 547 out that there was no provision made in the clause with reference to persons residing England and Scotland.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
believed that his hon. Friend had adopted a mode of publicity that would be satisfactory to the public.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
inquired whether the Bill was intended to apply to marriages of members of the Established Church duly solemnized in Church. If so, he should object to it, for the members of that Church were quite content with the security which they enjoyed under the existing law.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, the Bill did not extend to members of the Established Church. If there, was any doubt upon the point, he was willing to insert any Amendment that would have the effect of making the point perfectly clear.

§ MR. BUTT
said, the clause was the most important in the whole Bill, inasmuch as it made a distinction between the English law and that which would become the law in Ireland if the Bill passed. At present in the Dissenting chapels the ceremony of marriage must be performed in the presence of the registrar. That was considered a grievance, and therefore it was proposed to dispense with the presence of the registrar; but it was necessary that there should be a security that the marriage was properly solemnized. The clause enacted that the ceremony should be performed by the "ordained minister" of the Dissenting body to which the parties belonged; but who was to determine that the minister present was a properly "ordained minister" of that particular body? Who was to show that he was ordained at all? He feared, that if this provision were retained, questions would be raised as to the validity of marriages founded on the validity of the ordination of the person who had officiated? In the whole history of our legislation there was no instance of a clause having been inserted in a Bill establishing the validity of the ordination of Dissenting ministers. He moved that the words "an ordained" be struck out of the clause.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he did not object to the Amendment, but said the question was not as to what the Church of England considered ordination. It was 548 perfectly well known that the Wesleyans, for instance, had ordinations, and it was well understood what an "ordained minister" meant.

§ MR. MACDONOGH
suggested that the words "officiating minister" should be substituted for the words "ordained minister."

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
admitted the force of the objection to the word "ordained," but said the word "ordained" had been used at the request of the Dissenting bodies to whom the Bill was to apply, as there were two classes of clergymen belonging to these denominations

§ MR. BUTT
was sorry that the hon. Baronet had consented to adapt the clause so as to meet the differences between the different Dissenting bodies.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the clause introduced a serious alteration in the canonical hours set apart for marriage. It provided that marriages should only take place between the hours of eight and twelve instead of eight and two.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, the alteration introduced into the Bill was for the express purpose of bringing it back to the canonical hours, which were eight to twelve.

§ MR. BUTT
thought the right hon. Baronet had fallen into the mistake in consequence of the Act of 1844 having fixed the hours between eight and twelve.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
The Rubric says eight and two.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
No, the Rubric says eight and twelve.