HC Deb 08 May 1879 vol 245 cc2050-5

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. A. F. Egerton.)

MR. COURTNEY

thought the measure required a little further consideration before it was passed into law. The object of the Bill was to make valid certain marriages contracted on board Her Majesty's ships. It was perfectly clear, from the mere fact that doubts were recited in the Preamble concerning the validity of these marriages, that those also contracted on board vessels other than Her Majesty's ships, and as was usual entered in the log books, would, inferentially, be left invalid Now, if doubt ought to be removed with reference to the former marriages—and he confessed that serious doubt existed with regard to them—it ought to be removed equally with respect to marriages contracted under similar circumstances in the Mercantile Marine; and to this he could conceive there could be no serious objection. Again, there was another question of policy involved in the Bill. For it was clear that if the Bill were passed all future marriages contracted under similar circumstances would be held to be invalid, and circumstances were constantly arising under which such marriages ought to be contracted and would be formally contracted. The Bill, therefore, ought to lay down certain simple provisions, subject to which these marriages might be legally contracted, whether on board Her Majesty's ships or not. He begged to move that the Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of inserting therein provisions extending it to and confirming marriages contracted in ships other than Her Majesty's ships; and also for rendering valid all similar marriages in the future as well as in the past. He did not know what might be the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon this subject; but he could not conceive how they should object to the first part of his proposition. The second part might be a matter of more difficulty; and to describe under what conditions these marriages should be valid in future would require a great deal more consideration. With regard to past marriages on board ships other than Her Majesty's ships, which were not unfrequently contracted, he thought the retrospective validity given by the Bill should be extended to them also. It might very well be that persons of English origin and domicile going through the forms described were not dejure married; but it would be difficult in those of Scotch origin and domicile; and, in his opinion, the presumption was obviously in favour of the validity of their marriages. Relying on the justice of validating these marriages, so far as they were performed on board other than Her Majesty's ships, he would be glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were willing to assent to his proposition.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "recommitted,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

explained that the measure was simply intended to validate certain marriages which had been contracted bonâ fide on board Her Majesty's ships under the belief of their legality. Although some doubt existed some time ago, there was now no doubt whatever as to the law, for proceedings in the House of Lords had resulted in the decision that marriages of this sort, contracted in the absence of a priest, were invalid. No doubt, therefore, existed that marriages contracted under similar circumstances on board merchant ships were invalid.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

could not think the measure ought to be discussed in so thin a House as the present, considering that it had reached so late a stage as the third reading; and, therefore, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

explained that in the early ages of the Church marriages were valid, although ratified without any interposition of the clergy, if contracted by persons free to marry; but the Council of Trent, seeing that the exemptions were abused in some places, invalidated all marriges conducted in future in the absence of a priest in any place where the decree of the Council had been proclaimed. The decree of the Council, however, was never proclaimed in Scotland. The reason, therefore, why such marriages were valid in Scotland was that the laws of the Council had never been proclaimed in that country, and marriage without the sacred rite continued as effective as in ancient times. The same principle might, perhaps, apply to marriages on board ship, but he offered no opinion on that point.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of enabling a person to receive a considerable sum of money to which he was justly entitled, but which he could not receive until the Bill was passed. The hon. Member for Liskeard wished to make use of this Bill, introduced by the Admiralty, to alter the Law of Marriage. This proposal was of a very extraordinary character, for the Solicitor General had just pointed out that there was no doubt whatever with regard to the present state of the law. He did not think the House would consent to such a proceeding as that suggested by the hon. Member, because, if the Law of Marriage needed alteration, a Bill should be brought in for that purpose. He was far from saying that the Law of Marriage should not be altered, and in Scotland, perhaps, it might be altered with advantage; but he certainly could not consent that the proper way to alter the law was by a side wind. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would withdraw his Motion, and allow the Bill to be road a third time.

MR. RITCHIE

desired to know whether the Bill was only intended to legalize marriages which had taken place on board Her Majesty's ships? If that were so, it was an unfair and unjust measure. He saw no reason why the Bill should not also legalize marriages which had taken place on board merchant ships, under the same impression of their legality which operated in the case of those contracted on board Her Majesty's ships.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought that what they had heard justified his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) in making his Motion for re-committal, as well as the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member for Liskeard had certainly raised a fair doubt that there was something intended affecting the Law of Marriage which required very careful consideration—at any rate, so far as marriages contracted on board Scotch merchant vessels were concerned—and, therefore, as only one evening would be lost by the adjournment of the debate, he trusted the hon. Baronet would press his Motion for adjournment.

MR. COURTNEY

pointed out that the Bill was not for the purpose of validating a particular marriage, but was perfectly general in its application affecting all marriages contracted on board Her Majesty's ships. But it was the fact that marriages had been contracted on board other ships as well, under the same belief that existed in the former case—that they were valid—and he had heard no reason why the Bill should not be extended to them. The Solicitor General had not touched upon that point at all; but had confined himself to pointing out the law as declared in the House of Lords—namely, that the presence of the priest was a necessary ingredient in marriages, and in that case the parties were of Irish domicile. He thought that more time was necessary to allow them to consider the very serious principle which the Bill involved.

MR. WHITWELL

said, the Solicitor General had informed the House that the recent decision in the House of Lords upon a special case had made this legislation necessary. Now, if that recent decision altered the Law of Marriage generally, it was very clear that the question before the House was a much larger one than hon. Members at first imagined; and it was, therefore, important that it should be maturely considered. He was sure the hon. and learned Solicitor General would appreciate that suggestion; for it was well known that the law on the subject was very obscure, and that the opinion of gentlemen resident in Scotland was that a marriage on board a steamer within the territory of Scotland would, in fact, be legal. It was most desirable that the law should be cleared up, and that public attention should be drawn to the subject. He hoped the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

pointed out to the hon. Member for Liskeard that there was no distinction between a British and Scotch ship upon the high sea.

MR. ORR-EWING

hoped the Motion for adjournment would be withdrawn.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 47: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 82.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. HOPWOOD

hoped that the Government would listen to the calm appeal addressed to them by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The House was entitled to a little further consideration of the measure, which was one that could be taken up at anytime; and they, therefore, trusted the Government would agree to the adjournment of the House, which he begged to move.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 49: Majority 30.—(Div. List, No. 83.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. DILLWYN

thought it unreasonable, at that time, to proceed with the Bill, which raised such very important issues. The House had been told on one side that those marriages had not been performed in merchant ships; on the other hand, the hon. Member for Liskeard had said they had been per- formed. But although the Solicitor General said they had not, he could not say that they would not be performed. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had never known a Bill hurried through in the same way as this Bill had been. As there had been no actual discussion on the measure last evening, he thought that another opportunity should be given, and with that view he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought that in view of the lateness of the hour and the wishes of some hon. Members, it would be wise to agree to the adjournment of the debate. At the same time, he wished to point out that the case which had been brought forward was one that admitted of no doubt as to the facts. Under such circumstances, it was usual to afford relief to parties who were innocent; and he trusted that the House would proceed, in the present instance, with despatch. If the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) insisted, the Government were willing to adjourn the debate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.