NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1908)

§ MR. CARLILE
said he believed an arrangement was come to between the two Front Benches as to the Bills to be taken, and this Bill was not among them.

§ MR. FLAVIN
asked if the right hon. Gentleman was in order in stating that an arrangement was come to botwoen the two Front Benches when the Opposition Front Bench was absolutely empty.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said that they had got through a great deal of work that night. They had gone along very well up to that point, and dealt with a number of important questions. But now they were all very tired and as this Bill raised important questions he moved to report progress.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
said that he could not take the Motion at that stage. The Committee had recently rejected a similar Motion.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,) Essex, Saffron Walden
said that perhaps he might be allowed to state that no definite arrangement was made as to which Bills the Government were going to take that night or in regard to the number. What he said to the right hon. Gentleman for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire was that the Government proposed to take a certain number of Bills appearing first on the Paper and the last item. Last week he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were a number of Bills 1057 that it was absolutely essential the Government should take before the recess, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him as to the number of those Bills, included among which was the Naval Marriages Bill.

§ MR. CARLILE
said it appeared to him that the privilege of having the banns road on board ship in the Navy was a very desirable one, and he did not see why it should not be extended to the mercantile marine.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This is the Naval Marriages Bill. The hon. Member cannot discuss extension to the mercantile marine.

§ MR. CARLILE
merely wished to make the suggestion to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The privilege should not be confined to sailors of the Royal Navy. Why was it not proposed that the same privilege should be enjoyed by the sailors of the mercantile marine?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That question cannot be raised upon this Bill.

§ MR. CARLILE
Am I not at liberty to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill why certain sailors are to have this privilege and other sailors are not?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We are on Clause 2, and on that clause the question is not relevant.

§ *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,) Camberwell, N.
said the Bill was a very necessary little Bill which he might mention to hon. Members opposite was recommended two years ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was to on able officers and bluejackets and marines, to secure that the preliminaries to marriage might be taken on board a ship at sea. Under it the banns could be called, and the men interested, if they had made due declaration, could receive a certificate from the commanding 1058 officer corresponding to the registrar's certificate on land. The effect of striking out the clause would be that sailors could not got this certificate. The Bill, as he said, simply enabled sailors to take the proper preliminaries to marriage in the absence of domicile. In every case with the exception of an Archbishop's licence, which was a very costly affair, prohibitive to officers, to say nothing of bluejackets, domicile was required of seven or fifteen days in the case of one of the parties, at any rate, and in some cases both persons had to be living in the country on the day when notice was given. The Bill enabled bluejackets and marines to take the preliminary steps without such necessity of domicile. It was entirely non-controversial and it did not alter the law in any respect whatever, except in regard to that one matter.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said it was not his intention to obstruct the passing of the Bill. It seemed to him, however, that the title was a misnomer, that it really ought to be called the Naval Banns Bill.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We are not on the title of the Bill. We are on Clause 2.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said the effect of the Bill, particularly of that section, was to allow not naval marriages but naval banns. There was nothing about marriages in the clause.

§ DR. MACNAMARA
said the clause provided that where a marriage was not intended to be solemnised by banns the commanding officer was empowered to take the declaration which would be made before the registrar.