Lords Sitting of 19 March 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Acts of Uniformity Amendment* (43); Bishops Resignation Continuance* (44); Deans and Canons Resignation * (48); Marriages (Society of Friends)* (29).
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL, SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to what had been said by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack last night, and also on a former occasion, he wished to make one or two observations. Out-of-doors there was an impression that his noble and learned Friend had submitted his Bill for a new Court of Appellate Jurisdiction and other Law Bills to the Judicature Commission, and that they had been considered by a Committee of that Commission. Now, as a Member of the Commission, he (Lord Cairns) knew that no Bill had been submitted to it by his noble and learned Friend, and, consequently, no Bill of his noble and learned Friend

  223
  could have been referred by the Commission to a Committee of its Members. What private communication his noble and learned Friend might have had with Members of the Commission he had no means of knowing; but beyond the Report of the Commission, made now two years ago, there was no responsibility on the part of the Commission in respect of any Bills introduced by his noble and learned Friend. He wished to call attention to another error into which he believed his noble and learned Friend had fallen. It had reference to the appellate business of their Lordships' House. His noble and learned Friend was reported to have said some time ago, that when he first took his seat in that House the appeals were two Sessions and a-half in arrear. He (Lord Cairns) was surprised when he read that statement, because it did not at all accord with his recollection. He now held in his hand a Return, which showed how the apppeal business stood at the beginning and at the end of the Session of 1868, when he had himself the honour to occupy the place now filled by his noble and learned Friend. From that Return he found that at the beginning of the Session of 1868—the Session immediately preceding the advent of his noble and learned Friend to the Woolsack—the number of appeals set down for hearing was 42, and the number heard during the Session was 38—leaving 4. He did not like to state positively the reason why those four stood over, but he believed it was because the parties objected to their being taken up at a late period of the Session. He thought, therefore, that that Return showed that the information obtained by his noble and learned Friend must have been erroneous.
  LORD WESTBURYwished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, whether he was correctly reported this morning as having said last night that—
  "On Thursday next he would make a statement on the subject of the Bill for the establishment of a new Court of Appellate Jurisdiction"—
  Did not his noble Friend state that he would bring in the Bill on Thursday evening?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would have been glad if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had given Notice of that part of his Question
  224
  which related to arrears of appeals in their Lordships' House. Not having had such Notice, he had not been in a position to make the necessary inquiries; he would, however, do so, and state the result, if necessary, on a future occasion. He thought there must be some fallacy lurking in the figures. Certainly there must be some difference in the way by which the Return quoted by his noble and learned Friend had been arrived at, and that by which the arrears to which he had referred on a former occasion had been calculated. But, as there had been no Notice, he was not prepared at the moment to explain the discrepancy, and must reserve his answer on this point. As to the other part of his noble and learned Friend's Question, he had to reply that on the first occasion of his reference to his Bill and to the Judicature Commission, he did not say that the Judicature Commission had been engaged in preparing Bills which he intended to introduce. On that occasion he said nothing of the kind. What he did say was, that during the Recess a number of gentlemen, Members of the Commission, had voluntarily formed themselves into a Committee, and had most kindly gone through the Bills to which he was referring. These gentlemen were Lord Justice James, Baron Bramwell, Mr. Justice Quain, and Mr. Hollams. They were members of the Commission, and though they were a self-appointed Committee for the purpose of going through the Bills, he did not think he had fallen into any great errors in his statement. They went most carefully through the whole of the Bills, and made a great number of useful alterations and suggestions and improvements in them. In reply to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury), as to the words attributed to him in the report published that morning, he had to say that the report was perfectly correct. The report most correctly made him say that he would make a statement on Thursday, and not that he would bring in the Bill on that day. He could not have made the latter promise last night, because he had discovered that previously to bringing in the Bill he must move a Resolution, and this he intended to do immediately after the Recess. On a former occasion he stated that he would bring in a Bill, and he had hoped and believed that he

  225
  would be able to bring it in before Easter. But, on a full consideration of the matter, be found that a previous Resolution would be necessary. He hoped their Lordships would not be of opinion that any apparent delay arose from negligence on his part in the performance of his promises. Both his noble and learned Friends were aware from experience of the amount of business which the Lord Chancellor had to get through, in addition to the duties which he had to perform in that House.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his noble and learned Friend's explanation was, as he expected it to be, perfectly satisfactory. His noble and learned Friend was quite entitled to ask any of the members of the Commission to give him such assistance as that which had been rendered by the learned Gentleman he had referred to. The misunderstanding had been that the Bill had been submitted to the Commission, which had referred it to a Committee.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 43.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
ACTS OF UNIFORMITY AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 43.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that in 1869, owing to the growth of certain ritual practices in the Church, Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the differences of practice which had arisen from varying interpretations put upon the rubrics, and directions for regulating the course and conduct of public worship, with a view to secure general uniformity of practice in such matters as might be deemed essential. The Commission had made four Reports. The two first had not yet led to any legislative action. They had reference principally to certain matters connected with the ritual which by the time the Reports were published had become the subject of discussion in the courts of law. Since then the courts of law had pronounced decisions on almost all the questions that were treated of in the first two Reports, and that was perhaps sufficient to accomplish the objects in view. Last year a Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament for the amendment of the Lectionary, the sub-
  226
  ject to which the third Report referred. The fourth Report, on which the present Bill was founded, had a wider range, and embraced almost the whole of the rubrics of the Prayer Book, and suggested such alterations as the Commissioners thought desirable in order to effect the object for which the Commission was issued. The subjects treated of in this Report naturally divided themselves into two heads; but the Bill dealt with only one of them, and proposed to carry into effect certain alterations proposed by the Commission by means of a few simple alterations in the Act of Uniformity. The Bill, therefore, was very simple in character, and had obtained the consent of almost every person interested in the Church of England. The greatest care had been taken that all persons and opinions should be represented upon the Commission. Farther than this, the Commission sat for a very long time, and lengthened discussions took place; and the conclusions which they arrived at were the more entitled to consideration because of the great care that had been taken to arrive at them, and because of the unanimity displayed at last among the members of the Commission, after there had been the greatest diversity of opinion at first. The Commission having reported, the constitutional practice was followed by the Crown authorizing the representative bodies of the clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York to consider the Report, and further to report to Her Majesty thereon. In Convocation, also, it might be anticipated that considerable diversity of opinion would exist; but the Report had received the approval of members of both Houses of Convocation, with very rare exceptions. This was the only constitutional mode in which the voice of the clergy could be heard upon such a matter; and Convocation did, perhaps, fairly enough represent the clergy. He might say also that this Bill had the approbation of the laity, as represented on the Commission. It appeared to the members of the Commission that the first thing that they had to do was to give greater liberty where it was right that liberty should be enjoyed, and that there should be required greater uniformity in matters where it was desirable; and these two things were represented in the provisions of the Bill. There were five

  227
  provisions in the measure. The first had reference to the ordinary daily services of the Church. It was the conviction of all who had carefully considered the subject that in this busy age there would be great difficulty in securing the presence of anything like a congregation on week days for the ordinary services of the Church. At all events, the conviction of the members of the Commission was that there were many persons who would desire to avail themselves of the benefit of the daily service of the Church if they could do so at a less sacrifice of time, such as would not interfere with their ordinary avocations—if, in fact, they could have an abridged service, and so be able to accommodate their ordinary avocations in life to a daily attendance at church. The first provision in the Bill, therefore, was that a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer might be used in churches on any day except Sunday, and the usual great Church festivals. The second provision had reference to special occasions which might arise in any parish—such as a great deliverance from sickness, or a thanksgiving at the close of the harvest season—and it was provided that there might on such occasions be such a special form of service in the church as might be approved by the Ordinary. The third provision had reference to Sunday services. It was provided by law that in all churches there should be certain morning and evening services; but the zeal of the clergy had led them, in populous places, to establish a third service; and for the sake of the clergy and the laity also it had been held to be desirable that there should be power legally of holding a third service, without repetition of the same words. The third provision, therefore, settled that there might be an extra service upon the Sunday differing from the ordinary morning and evening services; but it was also provided that there should be no variation from mere caprice, and therefore that, with the exception of anthems or hymns, the additional service should be taken from the Prayer Book or Bible—and that the whole shall have been approved by the Ordinary. This enactment, it was believed, would be a great advantage to large towns; it seemed to confer a power of setting apart for persons of but little advancement in education a religious
  228
  service that should have somewhat of a missionary character, and which service it was trusted might greatly add to the influence of the Church among the ignorant and the poor in certain neglected parishes, and greatly conduce to their spiritual and, through their spiritual, to their temporal welfare. The fourth provision had to do with the removal of doubts as to the legality of using the several services of the Church as separate services. He had himself no doubt on the subject; but as doubts did exist, it was desirable to remove them. The fifth provision of the Bill was also one for removing a doubt. There seemed to be question whether a sermon might be preached without the ordinary service having been previously read:—the clause therefore provided that it should be sufficient if the sermon were preceded by any service authorized by this Act, or by the Bidding Prayer, or by one prayer taken from the Prayer Book. It was thought that a sermon without the usual service might, in some instances, attract many auditors who, from various causes, were not otherwise likely to attend. Their Lordships were aware that by a special clause in the Act of Uniformity there might be a sermon in the Universities without a service preceding it—it was thought desirable that the same liberty should be extended to our parish churches. Sermons delivered in cathedrals under such circumstances might be attended with very beneficial results. Those were the provisions of the Bill. He regarded it as no slight matter that, amid the differences of opinion which must always arise in a thoughtful and active age, this measure had received the hearty approval of the clergy and laity of almost every shade of opinion. He believed there were not those serious differences of opinion which some persons represented as existing in the Church of England. On the contrary, he thought that the reception of this Bill showed that there existed a hearty unity among Churchmen in the desire to make the Church of England more useful to all classes of the people. There were differences of opinion among Churchmen; but he, for one, did not desire to see that leaden uniformity which was to be found among a people who had no ardent zeal for religious matters. He would rather see differences of opinion among men who thought for themselves, and who,

  229
  thinking for themselves, were earnest in the work they had in hand. He believed that nothing would tend more to heal differences among Churchmen than such helps as this Bill provided to enable the clergy to perform their duty.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not intend to place any obstruction in the way of the measure, for he thought that the amendments proposed by the Bill were called for by the opinion of the country, and the most rev. Primate had done well in responding to that opinion. He admitted that some of the changes proposed to be effected would be very beneficial; but he must point out that the course of reform must be deeper and more searching, if they wished to call back into the folds of the Church the hundreds and thousands of people who had wandered from her, and to induce those who had never been within her bosom to avail themselves of her teaching. He thought it possible that, under this Bill, there might at first arise a diversity of service in different dioceses and parishes. Now, if the right rev. Bench desired to conform to the wishes of the people, it might be desirable that he should call attention to the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill, which he thought were at present extremely ambiguous. If the 4th and 5th clauses were read together, there would be a doubt as to whether it would not be in the power of the Ordinary to prevent evening Communion. The practice of having evening Communion had grown up of late years, and great value was everywhere attached to it. For one working man or woman in these localities who went to noon-day Communion, there would be four, five, or even ten, who went in the evening. If our Church, then, was to be the Church of the people, it was necessary to consider and respect the habits and modes of life of the working population. He should regard such a prohibition as a great evil. There had sprung up, especially in London, a habit among working women of attending the evening services of the Church. From personal observation, he knew that in districts where an attendance at an afternoon service could scarcely be secured, the church was filled to overflowing at the evening services, and working women, who could not at-
  230
  tend at other times, came carrying their infants at their breasts. He knew that the most rev. Primate was as anxious for the temporal and spiritual welfare of the people as any man in this country, and, therefore, he had every confidence that his Grace would introduce an Amendment to remove the doubt to which he had referred.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONbelieved be might answer for the most rev. Primate. It was intended to lay before their Lordships an Amendment to clear up any ambiguity on the point referred to by the noble Earl. He was not about to enter on the question of legality or illegality of evening Communion. There was a great difference of opinion as to its legality, and also as to its advisability; but the Bill would leave these questions as they now stood.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

DEANS AND CANONS RESIGNATION BILL.
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
(NO. 48.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill, which had come up from the Commons, might, perhaps, occasion some surprise; but he hoped the time had passed when the offices of Dean and Canon could be regarded as sinecures of the Church. He believed they were offices to which grave responsibility attached, and which were of very considerable importance to the Church of England. He did not think the Bill went to the whole root of the matter. Earnest as was the desire on the part of the members of the various bodies to perform their functions in the Church, they continually found themselves thwarted by the existence of old statutes and old regulations which it would be very desirable that their Lordships should take into consideration; but that would be a matter for future deliberation. Within the last two or three weeks more than one meeting of the Cathedral Chapters had been held at Lambeth, and but one spirit had animated all those who were present at

231
those meetings as to the necessity of making our cathedrals more general and useful to the whole community than they had been during the age which had just passed. The anxious desire of all persons connected with cathedrals was to make them thoroughly useful as integral and important parts of the Church of England system. The wish now was to make our cathedrals not only the homes of learned men, and temples in which large congregations gathered together to hear the Word of God, but to make them the centres, in all senses, of the dioceses. At the last meeting, though there was a great difference of opinion as to whether it would be desirable to make any appeal to Parliament for an alteration in the statutes, there was only one opinion as to the Cathedral Bodies having a great duty to perform. Such being the case, the offices of Canons and Deans could not be regarded as sinecures, and it was desirable that they should have the power of resigning in the same manner as the Bishops had by the Act, a Bill for the continuance of which their Lordships had just read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a "—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that the anticipations of the most rev. Primate with regard to the cathedrals and the Cathedral Bodies would be realized. He rose to express his gratitude to the most rev. Primate for the several Bills of which he had moved the second reading that evening, which had been introduced not only, he thought, with the best intention, but with wise judgment. He desired, however, to offer a few criticisms. The 6th and 7th clauses of this Bill would affect certain members of the Universities who, in addition to other offices, held that of Canon. He thought there were two Heads of Colleges at Oxford and one at Cambridge in that position, and those Colleges viewed with apprehension the power which the Bill would give the Bishops to deprive them of their Heads—that was to say, to declare them lunatics, and remove them out of the way.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought that the fears which the noble Marquess had expressed on behalf of the Heads of certain Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were altogether groundless. It would not be in his power under this
232
Bill, or in that of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Ely), to declare those eminent persons lunatics in the off-hand way the noble Marquess seemed to suppose. This point affected himself more nearly than any other of his reverend Brethren. By the 8th clause, both the collegiate churches in the diocese of Oxford were taken out of his jurisdiction. The case of the Chapel of St. George, Windsor, was intelligible enough; but he was at a loss to imagine why Christ's Church should be withdrawn. If both the Queen's Chapel of St. George at Windsor and Christ Church were to be taken out of the diocese of Oxford, it might be said that that diocese was without a cathedral, and the further question might then arise in some minds whether any other diocese would not do as well without a cathedral.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHregarded this Bill as the commencement of a series of measures of importance and usefulness to the Church to be introduced into the House; but, at the same time, thought that it would require amendment on one or two points.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the Dean of Christ Church stood in so peculiar a position, from the fact of his being the Head of a College, that the jurisdiction over him ought to be, not in the Bishop of Oxford, but in the Archbishop.
After a few observations from Lord LYTTELTON,
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MARRIAGES (SOCIETY OF FRIENDS) BILL.—(No. 30.) (The Lord Romilly.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD ROMILLY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, stated that it had already passed the other House of Parliament. The object of the measure was to amend the law with regard to the marriages of those who professed to belong to the Society of Friends. Quakers' marriages were omitted from the 26th George II.; but they were sanctioned by the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 85, in cases where both parties were members of the Society of Friends. By

  233
  the 23rd & 24th of Her present Majesty, c. 81, this restriction was removed, and marriages might be solemnized according to the usages of the Society, not only in the previous cases, but in cases where one only, or where neither of the parties to the marriage should be members of the Society; but with the proviso that the party or parties who should not be a member or members of the Society, should profess with or be of the persuasion of the Society. As this proviso, however, limited the relief proposed to be given by the Act, in order that it might be made fully effective this Bill proposed to repeal it. The Society of Friends had religious ceremonies of their own, according to which they desired their members to be married, and they objected to marriages before the Registrar. But a considerable class of persons, who approved of the ceremonies of the Society of Friends as regarded marriage and some other matters, but who did not entirely profess with the Society, were excluded by the law as it now stood from being married according to their ceremonies. As, however, it was obvious that evils might arise from the Bill as it stood without any safeguards from abuse, he would not have consented to introduce this measure unless it had been agreed that it should be amended in Committee, by requiring that, in addition to the particulars already required by law, the registering officer of the Society should add a certificate under his hand that the parties to such marriage were persons duly authorized under the rules of the Society to solemnize their marriage according to the usages of the Society, and this certificate should form part of the register of such marriages; and that without such registration the marriage should not be valid.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Romilly.)
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was afraid this Bill would still further widen the gap that at present existed in our marriage law. This was a proposal to permit persons who, up to the day of their marriage, had no connection whatever with the Society of Friends to get married according to the forms of that Society. Although the Bill appeared to be a small one, and to concern a body which was not numerous, still he asked their Lordships to consider whether by passing
  234
  it they would not be opening the door to an alteration of the whole marriage law as relating to all persons who were not members of the Church of England.
  LORD ROMILLYexplained that marriages according to the forms of the Society of Friends were celebrated only in solemn assembly, according to express form, after careful inquiry. The Society of Friends had their own registrar, who registered the marriage; and, if the clause which he proposed to introduce was adopted, the entry of the marriage made by the registrar of the Society of Friends must afterwards be sent to the regular registrar of the parish.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked whether parties who were not members of the Society of Friends could not be married in those solemn assemblies? The Bill would seem to give no guarantee that the parties contracting the marriage must be members of the Society of Friends, and if such a measure were passed other Nonconformist bodies might come forward and claim to have the same privilege extended to them.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONasked what security there was that those who were not members of the Society of Friends might not avail themselves of the privilege?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas prepared to support the second reading of the Bill, subject to the alteration which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) had described, and also to any other alteration which might be necessary. There appeared to be a desire on the part of some people holding peculiar religious opinions to superinduce a religious service upon the civil ceremony of marriage.
  In answer to The Marquess of SALISBURY,
  LORD ROMILLYwas understood to say that at present he believed those marriages were registered only by the registrar of the Society of Friends.
  LORD CAIRNSsuggested that the debate should be adjourned, to enable the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill to frame safeguards that would obviate objections.
  LORD ROMILLYpressed his Motion for the second reading of the Bill in the form in which it came from the other House; but promised not to go into Committee upon it until it contained all the proper clauses.
  LORD CHELMSFORDrecommended the adjournment of the debate.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 14; Not-Contents 13: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting day after the Recess at Easter.

MARRIAGE LAW COMMISSION (1865.)

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORDcalled attention to the Report of the Marriage Law Commission presented to the House in the year 1868, and asked, Whether the Government have any intention of taking steps to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners for the Amendment of the law? His reason for doing so at the present time was that since 1868 the subject appeared to have been utterly forgotten. Their Lordships doubtless recollected the remarkable case of a lady who claimed to be the wife of a major either by a marriage in Scotland or a marriage in Ireland. The question was tried in the Courts in Scotland and in Ireland, and ultimately came before their Lordships, who decided that neither the Scotch nor Irish marriage was good. The case excited much attention, and much discussion arose upon it; and the result gave rise to a desire that the state of the marriage law should be inquired into, and a Question was asked in the House of Commons upon the subject by an hon. Member, who expressed the opinion that Scotland, as far as its marriage laws were concerned, was not a civilized country. Lord Palmerston replied that the question was a large one, and declined to promise off-hand that the Government would take the matter into consideration; but on the Question being repeated in the following Session, Sir George Grey said that the Government had advised Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission. Accordingly in 1865, a Commission was appointed to inquire into and report upon the various laws now in force in the United Kingdom with respect to marriage. He (Lord Chelmsford) was himself appointed head of the Commission, and of the body of
  236
  the Commission he could say that a better selection of men could not have been made. It included the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Cairns, the late Lord Mayo, Lord Penzance, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Monsell, the present Lord Justice General, the present Lord Advocate, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Walpole, Sir Roundell Palmer, and the Queen's Advocate. The Commission began their labours by examining persons of experience from different parts of the kingdom who were acquainted with the marriage law, and he must express his regret that the concise statements which were made were not printed in the Appendix with the Report; and at the request of the Commissioners he issued a Circular, which was sent to every authority in the kingdom, including the heads of the Nonconformist Body and the Chief Rabbi of the Jews, asking for information, which was furnished, and proved to be most valuable. This information was printed in the Appendix of the Report. The Commissioners then examined witnesses selected from various religious bodies, and if any of the Commissioners were absent at any time attending to their ordinary official duties a copy of the evidence taken during their absence was sent to them. The Report of the Commissioners was signed by the whole body; but the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Mr. Monsell dissented from part of the Report on religious grounds; and the Lord Justice General differed entirely from all the references to Scotland, and, with pardonable partiality for the institution of his country, declared his conviction that the marriage law of Scotland was preferable in theory and principle to the marriage law of England, and that in practice it had been very beneficial in its influence upon the social condition of the country. He was afraid, however, the Lord Justice General had not considered the evidence as to the moral effect of the law in certain cases. The primary object of the Commission was to bring the marriage law in the several parts of the United Kingdom into unison, and with this object in view the Commissioners laid down what they deemed to be the principles of a sound marriage law. They made most important recommendations as to the inquiries preliminary to marriage, and expressed their opinion that the publication of banns

  237
  ought not to be required by law as a condition either of legality or of regularity in a marriage. The Commissioners also recommended the total abolition of fees on marriage; and said that if their recommendations were adopted the enactments necessary to give effect to them should be embodied in a single statute, and that all the existing statutes on the subject should be repealed. He ought to mention that all the recommendations made by the Commissioners had received the sanction of the different religious bodies, with some few exceptions. In concluding their Report the Commissioners said that if their recommendations became law the great object of uniformity would be accomplished, the law of marriage would be simplified and consolidated, guarantees for the certainty of marriage would be obtained without any infringement of religious liberty, without causing any antagonism between the Church and the State, and without sensible interference with the methods in which marriages have been hitherto solemnized in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It would surely be a great reproach to the country if a Report of this kind, made by such distinguished Commissioners, was allowed to fall to the ground and produce no fruits. In the year 1869 he asked his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether the Government intended to give effect to the Commissioners' Report. The noble and learned Lord in his reply said a number of things were occupying the attention of the Government, and mentioned in particular the patent law, the bankruptcy law, charitable trusts, and the review of our system of judicature. The subject, his noble and learned Friend added, was one which affected every family in the kingdom; that sufficient time had certainly not been given to the public to consider what might result from the alterations recommended by the Commissioners; and that although to proceed with immediate legislation on the subject might present the appearance of vigour and alacrity, still the Government might bring on itself a charge of hasty and inconsiderate legislation. These words were uttered very nearly three years ago, and if the Government were now to legislate on the subject they could hardly suffer from any imputation of undue haste. Whether Government could legislate without consideration
  238
  must depend on the answer which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was about to give, for if the subject had not been considered by the Government they would hardly be prepared to bring in a Bill. He trusted, however, that the noble and learned Lord would be able to assure the House that a measure on this important subject, which, as he had himslf remarked, affected every family in the kingdom, would be presented to Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was impossible to find fault with his noble and learned Friend for having brought this matter to their Lordships attention; and the public must be greatly indebted to him both for his earnest efforts to promote the inquiry and for his constant attendance at the sittings of the Commission. There was, however, one circumstance which would in some degree explain what appeared to his noble and learned Friend to be the unreasonable delay of the Government in introducing a measure founded on their Report. Three years were occupied in making the inquiry, and this was owing not only to the number of persons examined, but also to the fact that most of the Commissioners had other important duties to perform. His noble and learned Friend, for instance, held the office of Lord Chancellor during a considerable portion of that time.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: But I attended all the meetings.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt his noble and learned Friend attended all the meetings; but the delay was occasioned by the intervals between the meetings. But it should also be remembered that this Report referred to one only of many important legal reforms affecting large classes of the community. When any Government took office it was the duty of each officer in his particular Department to see what were the subjects on which legislation was most necessary. The present Government had been reproached—and perhaps justly so in some degree—for having been over-laborious in preparing so many measures for the approbation of Parliament that it became almost hopeless to expect they could all be carried through the Legislature. He might assert with safety, however, that in the history of our country there could hardly be found in any three successive

  239
  years such a large number of important measures passed through the Legislature as had been carried since the present Government came into office. It was only necessary to specify the Irish Church Act, the Irish Land Act, and the Education Act—to say nothing of the important measures which were under consideration this Session, and which he hoped would pass into law. As regarded his own Department, he thought it sufficient if one large measure were undertaken at a time. The first and most important question was, in his opinion, the law of bankruptcy, which had already occupied the attention of three Chancellors and of two very able Attorneys General. Another pressing subject was our system of judicature. He had succeeded last Session in passing the High Court of Justice Bill through their Lordships' House, although from pressure of business in the other House it did not become law. That Bill, and the Bill on Appellate Jurisdiction, still occupied attention, and would, he hoped, be brought before their Lordships immediately after the Easter Recess. Under these circumstances, it did not seem wise to undertake a measure for the alteration of the law of marriage. Other subjects had been mentioned, as, for instance, the patent law and the state of the law respecting the title and registration of land. On the latter a Commission had reported several years ago; but their recommendation had not yet been carried into effect. With regard to the marriage law, it was undoubtedly a very important measure; but it was for the Government to consider whether there was any chance of its passing in the present state of public business, and whether it was wise to bring forward five or six measures at once with a certainty of succeeding in none. They had next to consider what measures it was best to postpone, and what sort of hope there was that a given measure would secure that general approbation of the public which was so conducive to its success. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) laid great stress on the fact that the House had the valuable Report drawn up by the Royal Commission, and recommending the introduction of the Bill. That there were difficulties to be met was evident on the face of the Report. It must be remembered, in the first place, that the Lord Justice General dissented from
  240
  the Report, because, while concurring in other respects with the Report, he held to views of his own with respect to the marriage law of Scotland; and, in fact, several Scotch witnesses recommended the adoption of their own law, in order to promote uniformity. Irish witnesses would probably have similar preference for their own law. Dr. Moriarty, on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, pointed out that a measure based upon the Report of the Royal Commission was not likely to obtain any degree of concurrenc eon the part of the priesthood, who would be opposed to anything which would appear to connect them with the civil registrars, although they would be ready to send in certificates of marriage if required. A third difficulty arose in presence of the very large number of persons who thought that the proper mode of dealing with the marriage question was that the civil contract should be the only one recognized by the State, leaving it to the persons concerned to superimpose upon that process whatever other ceremony they might please to select. Still another difficulty was presented by the divergence between the divorce law of Scotland and the divorce law of England. Scotch lawyers, and possibly a majority of the Scotch nation, thought that their law, which permitted divorce upon proof of adultery, was the best and most moral law that could be enacted; while English lawyers and a majority of the English nation held that their own law was the better of the two. The mere mention of these difficulties was sufficient to show that the Bill was not one which could be passed through Parliament without a considerable amount of discussion and opposition. He was not stating that nothing was to be done, nor was he making any excuse for any amount of laziness which might be laid to his personal charge. But it was incumbent upon him to weigh the amount of time at his disposal against the number of pressing measures claiming his attention, and to make a selection of what he thought it best for the interests of the country to give precedence to. He had made his selection, and he must decline to alter it in favour of a marriage law, unless he saw some better prospect than at present existed of carrying it through the House this Session.
  LORD LYVEDENfelt bound to say that, having been one of the Commission, he had rarely met with a subject that had received a greater amount of attention. He thought that in the present state of Business before their Lordships it would have been possible, during the sort of half-holiday they had kept, to have introduced a measure relating to the marriage law, and to have brought the Report of the Commission before the public, who knew little of its existence. The only difficulty in passing such a Bill would lie with the Scotch and Irish Members of the House of Commons. All Scotchmen affirmed that the Scotch marriage law was the most religious and moral ever passed, and infinitely more so than the law of England; whereas most Englishmen had the opposite opinion. He did not reproach the noble and learned Lord for not taking action in this matter. It was not so much his fault as the fault of the present system, under which nothing could be done until some sensational case arose, and then the necessity for legislation was admitted, and efforts made to meet it. No measures for the advancement of the happiness and welfare of mankind could be passed unless there was some party interest to support them. It was the same throughout every part of the law. They had recently had two monstrous cases, from one of which it appeared that an impostor could put persons to an expense of £100,000 to retain their estates; and from the other that a scoundrel could place people in even a worse position by means of affidavits, made under a system which he understood was sanctioned by the Attorney General.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONrebutted the allegation of the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) that at the present day no measures were passed that were not of a sensational character, by pointing to many useful and practical measures which had been passed of late years which did not come within that description. It would be useless for the Government to attempt to carry any measure on this subject during the present Session, having regard to the present state of Public Business; but he saw no reason why the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Chelmsford) should not himself undertake to bring forward a Bill which would embody his views on the subject.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he should deprecate such a measure as the one he suggested being brought forward by a non-official Member of their Lordships' House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.