MR. DAWSONsaid, he rose to bring before the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland the present position of the General Marriage Law of Ireland, and to suggest that, under the authority of the Government, a revision of such Law shall be undertaken. He believed that the efforts of private Members to deal with this question would not be attended with 1658 any satisfactory result, inasmuch as these propositions were entirely incomplete and insufficient, and nothing but the adoption of a hold and direct system would satisfy the public expectation. He trusted that the Government would undertake vision of the marriage law in all its forms, and would introduce into Ireland a system of registration which would involve a change in the law. There were five distinct laws of marriage celebration in force in Ireland, and most vexatious restrictions were imposed. In the north of Ireland, and he believed in all parts of Ireland generally, the Act of 1844 was regarded with disfavour, and its repeal, or its very extensive modification, would give wide-spread satisfaction. Its forms were cumbrous, partial, and unjust. He was strongly of opinion that there should be for Ireland one simple general law of marriage which, repealing all disabilities, should confer equal privileges upon all religions, should carry with it equal rights and responsibilities, and should embrace a system of marriage registration under which the interests of the whole community might be advantageously placed. The present marriage law imposed vexatious restrictions upon the clergy of all denominations. The clergy of the Established Church, who by their learning and religious activity had gained a high position in Ireland, were nut allowed full discretion. A Presbyterian minister was privileged to officiate in a mixed marriage where a member of his own congregation was concerned, but only after the proclamation by banns and the production of a licence. Roman Catholic clergymen could not officiate in mixed marriages, and experience daily proved that that exclusion was both unjust and ungenerous. He could not believe that the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church would object to the adoption of a uniform marriage law. Another class of marriages were those at which the attendance of the Registrar was enforced —namely, those of the Nonconformists, who were the chief sufferers under the present Act. He asked on what principle of reason or justice were Wesleyan, Baptist, or Independent ministers precluded from the right to celebrate marriages in the same manner as the Episcopalians or the Catholics? In his opinion there were many forcible reasons why there should De a complete uniformity in the marriage aw throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, and why the highest legal officer of the Crown should direct his atten- 1659 tion to the subject. If, however, the amendment of the marriage law were confined to Ireland, he asked that all religious denominations should possess the power of celebrating marriages according to their forms, conscientiously prepared, and that there should be a system of lay agency, similar to that so successfully established in Scotland in 1854. In a season of prosperity there was an increase, and in seasons of adversity a diminution in the number of marriages. This was completely illustrated in the records of marriages in Lancashire during the last two or three years. Marriage statistics, it was admitted, formed an admirable social barometer, and it was one that he should be glad to see applied to Ireland. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to direct their attention to the subject, with the view of removing an unjust and intolerable grievance.