HC Deb 15 June 1898 vol 59 cc351-8
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

This, of course, is a provision which practically corresponds with the provision applying to the Established Church. As regards the custody and safe keeping of documents, I should like to ask the careful consideration of right honourable Gentlemen, and honourable Gentlemen who represent Nonconformist bodies, as to whether this direction for retaining documents is sufficient. I do not know whether or not it is common for marriages to be solemnised in the chapels of many of the smaller bodies. As the Bill first read it applied to buildings which were licensed; I think the words were "registered for religious worship." It is obvious that there are many small chapels in which it would be unwise to have marriages, though the services are most proper, and ought to be encouraged, and accordingly a provision has been put down confining the Bill to buildings registered for the marriage ceremony. But I am informed—and I now come to the matter—that in some of the Nonconformist churches and chapels there are no proper arrangements for the safe cus- tedy of documents, and that, in even those licensed for marriages, safes and other things are not provided. I should be very glad if those dealing with the matter would make it part of their duty to secure the safe custody required. Of course, we could not refuse to allow marriages to be solemnised if the buildings were licensed simply because there was no proper place in which books could be kept. Perhaps some Member would suggest some words which would meet the case. I have framed the words generally, but I should be glad if honourable Gentlemen opposite would suggest some Amendment with a view to the better safeguarding of these documents. I move, Sir.

Question put— Page 3, line 25, leave out from 'be' to end of clause, and insert 'shall be retained among the documents belonging to the registered building in which the marriage has been solemnised, and shall be produced with the marriage register as and when required by the Registrar General.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER

It is quite evident that this only applies to registered buildings. In all large registered buildings there are safes and other conveniences. What I do not like in this Amendment is that the register shall be retained among the documents belonging to the registered building. The title deeds may be in the hands of a lawyer or some other person, and I should rather like if the register could be retained in the building. I do not think that it ought to go away into private custody.

* MR. GEDGE

Would my Amendment lower down meet the point? It proposes to add to the clause the words— To the registered minister of the building where the said marriage was solemnised, and shall be kept in a reasonably secure place in. the said building.

* MR. PERKS

We must secure the safe custody of these documents, but I do not agree that they should be away from the buildings. In every large church there are always safes, and documents appertaining to the church are kept there, and the necessity for providing for the safe custody of these marriage documents will encourage the provision of proper facilities where they do not at present exist. I prefer the Amendment as drawn by the Attorney General.

MR. V. DAVIES (Cardigan)

asked why the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General was imposing restrictions on the Nonconformist churches which were not imposed on the Established Church?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

If the honourable Member will be good enough to look at the Amendment he will see that it is not stronger than in the case of the Church of England. I am afraid that in avoiding one danger I may fall into another. Those churches and chapels may not have secure places of keeping, but I will consider the point of the right honourable Gentleman. My only concern is for the safe custody of the documents.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

I think the Attorney General has exercised a wise discretion in framing the clause is he has. I am quite content with it, if it is understood that the retention of the documents in the buildings is not compulsory. There are some places of worship where there are safes and secure places beyond all question, but there are other places which would not be secure for lodging documents. The practice in such cases is that a responsible person takes charge of the documents. If you leave the local authority power to determine in what way they can best comply with this requirement, and hereafter it should appear that the Statute is not complied with, it would be in the power of the Registrar General to enforce a change, and to require that such measures be taken as will secure the proper custody of the documents.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Question put— That clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE (Walsall)

I beg to move— On clause 11, page 4, line 14, after 'Acts' to insert— And shall, upon conviction, cease to be a person authorised to solemnise marriages. There is no other way of preventing any man authorised to solemnise marriage from continuing to do so after he has committed an offence. If he has been convicted of an offence by failing to comply with the Act, I think he ought to lose his right to celebrate marriages in the future.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the Motion was that these words be inserted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

was understood to say that it seemed to him desirable that some such words should be inserted, and he accepted the Amendment, subject to consideration before the Report stage of the precise form of words. No one would desire to keep in office a man who misconducted himself.

The Amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved— On clause 12, page 4, line 17, to leave out 'following' and 'shall be.'

The Amendment was agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I beg to move— On clause 12, page 4, to leave out after line 17 to end of clause and insert— Registrars and registrars under the Marriage Act, 1836, and the marriage licence shall be payable in respect of marriages under this Act: Provided that whenever a notice of marriage, in which the attendance of the registrar of marriages is not required, is taken and attested by the registrar, he shall be entitled for taxing and attesting the notice and transmitting it to the superintendent register of his district to a fee of 5s. for a marriage by licence, and to a fee of 2s. 6d. for a marriage without a licence. I understand, from representations made to me—representations that ought to be considered—that the registrars are not altogether satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. This particular clause deals with the question of superintendent registrars. I ought to say at once that any question of compensating the registrars out of public moneys is not possible under this Bill. At all events, it is not a scheme I am justified in putting forward, and I do not think that those who are anxious for this Bill would ask that. However, I think there is a case to be considered, and I take this occasion to mention the matter in connection with the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the question he had to put was— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, W.)

I may say that the majority on this side heartily sympathise with the principle of the Bill, but I cannot think that the registrars are fairly dealt with in the mode proposed by the Attorney General. The superintendent registrars have been rightly provided for, but supposing the services of the registrar are to be dispensed with, there will be no obligation to pay him a fee, and there is no provision to pay him compensation for the loss of fees which he would sustain by the Bill. I hope that between now and the Report stage some provision will be made.

* MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

The Bill introduced by the Attorney General in 1887 made no provision to compensate the registrars. Now, in this case it is proposed to give the superintendent registrar 5s., instead of 40s., where the marriage is by special licence, and the registrar 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. Now, the proportion of marriages in Nonconformist chapels is small, owing to prohibitive fees. We feel it would be rather a grievance in having to pay 2s. 6d. instead of 1s., and we should have to pay 5s. to the superintendent registrar, who never attends at all. It should not fall upon the Dissenter, who has already been charged 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. In one of the Attorney General's Bills he provided that any compensation which he then made should terminate with the office of the existing registrar, and whatever provision he now makes for compensation should not be extended beyond the occupants of the existing offices. I would point out to him the injustice of paying 2s. 6d. instead of 1s., and also paying the superintendent, registrar, who is not intended to attend at all. I deny that Dissenters desire the attendance of registrars, but if it were so the registrars would be wanted as much in the future as in the past.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I fully agree with what was said by the honourable Member for Islington. I hope a wise and generous provision will be made to safeguard the registrars from any pecuniary loss.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and I will ask the House to pass this Amendment, reserving the right to make an alteration.

* SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I do not see why registrars should be entitled to fees for marriages which do not take place in Nonconformist chapels. There is no doubt that a large number of Nonconformist marriages are not solemnised in Nonconformist chapels owing to the conditions which the law has imposed upon Nonconformists.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

Many of the registrars do their work exceedingly well, and without offence, and we should be sorry were they to suffer any pecuniary loss. I quite agree, if any consideration is shown to the existing officials, that when their terms, of office cease the consideration should also cease. I should be sorry to take part in a discussion which would do an injustice to any class of officials.

The Amendment was agreed to, and the amended clause added to the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

moved— To leave out clause 14, on page 5.

Agreed to.

MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

There is one religious body perfectly satisfied with the position in which they stand under the law in relation to marriages, and they are anxious that their position shall not be weakened by the concession, too tardily made, to the claims of our Nonconformists. I beg to move the following' clause— Provided always that nothing in this Act shall be taken to relate or have any reference to marriages solemnised in accordance with the practice and usages of the Society of Friends.

MR. COCHEN (Islington, E.)

as an Amendment to Mr. Ellis's new clause (proviso as to the non-application of the Act to the Society of Friends), at the end of line 3 to add— Or of persons professing the Jewish religion.

The amended new clause was agreed to and added to the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I beg to move the following— Schedule 1, page 5, leave out all after line 11, and insert— The Marriage Act, 1836 (6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 85); the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4, and 1 Vic, c. 22); the Marriage Act, 1840 (3 and 4 Vic., c. 72); the Marriage and Registration Act, 1856 (19 and 20 Vic., c. 119); the Marriage Act, 1886 (49 and 50 Vic., c. 14).

The Amendment was agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I beg to move, on schedule 2, page 6, to leave out the form of return.

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE

I beg to move the following— Schedule 2, form of return, page 6, line, after 'officiating at the said marriage,' add 'being a person registered as qualified to solemnise marriage under the Marriage Act, 1898.' Schedule 2, form of instructions, page 7, line 2, before 'person,' insert 'registered.' Schedule 2, page 7, line 14, before 'person,' insert 'registered.'

The Amendment was agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I beg to move, on schedule 2, page 7, line 16, to leave out from "witnesses" to end of form.

The Amendment was agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE

I beg to move the following— Preamble, page 1, line 4, after 'that,' insert 'under proper restrictions.' Preamble, page 1, line 6, leave out 'religious bodies,' and insert 'authorised persons.'

The Amendment was agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE

I beg to move the following— Title, page 1, leave out 'attendance of registrars at.' Title, page 1, leave out 'in Nonconformist,' and insert' of Nonconformists.' Title, page 1, leave out 'places of worship.'

* MR. PERKS

declined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that the phraseology correctly described the object of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I think this is an illustration of the parable about straining and swallowing.

The Amendment was negatived, and the Bill, as amended, was reported to the House on the return of the Speaker.