Lords Sitting of 24 April 1891

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Rosslyn, after the death of his father.
The Lord Byron—Took the oath.

SAT FIRST.
  THE DISASTER AT MANIPUR.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Viscount opposite, the Secretary of State for India, of which I have given him notice privately. I am anxious to learn whether he is in a position to lay before the House any Papers he has received with reference to the recent deplorable events in Manipur? In doing so, I do not propose to express any opinion whatever upon those occurrences; but I hope your Lordships will allow me to say how very deeply I regret the sad loss of life which took place in connection with them, and especially to express my sorrow at the great loss the Government of India has sustained by the death of Mr. Quinton, the late Chief Commissioner of Assam. I was well acquainted with Mr. Quinton, and had much to do with him in the transaction of business in India, and I always found him a man of marked ability, sound judgment, and great moderation of character. I am quite confident that the Civil Service, of which he was so distinguished an ornament, has sustained a serious loss by his untimely death. The matters connected with the Manipur incident may be the subject of discussion at a, later period; but at the present moment I will only express an earnest hope that Her Majesty's Govern-ment|in India and at (home, in dealing with this question, will bear in mind that every step which is taken in regard to Native States in India is watched with the utmost care, and I may say jealousy, by every native prince and chief. I trust that Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with this question, will be strictly guided by those principles of policy, in regard to the Native States which were established upon the termination
    1270
    of the Mutiny, and which have given to India nearly 40 years of internal peace and contentment, and have done so much to increase the confidence and develop the loyalty of the native princes of that country.
    THE. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Marquess, I should first of all state how entirely I join with him in deploring the loss of so many valued officers in the disaster at Manipur. I should like, also, to join with him in what he has said as to the late Mr. Quinton, whose loss I deeply regret. He had been in the service of the Government of India for 35 years, and he had risen to his high position entirely by his own exertions. He had been a member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, and had won the confidence of no less than three successive, Viceroys —the noble Marquess opposite (Ripon), the Marquess of Dufferin, and the present Viceroy, the Marquess of Lansdowne; and it was only last year, in consequence of the high esteem in which he was held, that he was appointed to the somewhat difficult post of Chief Commissioner of Assam. I deeply deplore his loss, and I desire to say that I quite join in what has been done by the Viceroy and his Council in India in publishing remarks in a special Gazette with reference to the officers who lost their lives. On behalf of my Council, as well as on my own part, I entirely endorse all that has been said by the noble Marquess, and I should like to express my deepest sympathy with the widow of Mr. Quinton and with the relatives of the other officers who lost their lives on that sad occasion. With regard to the question as to Papers which the noble Marquess has put to me, I have only one Despatch from the Viceroy of India which brings matters down very nearly to the end of February. That Despatch reached me on the 23rd of March, exactly one day after this fatal disaster took place at Manipur. Of course, I shall have no objection whatever in course of time to lay that Despatch upon the Table of your Lordships' House; but I do not think it would be right to produce it until more information is gained as to the whole circumstances, from later Despatches, which I have no doubt I shall receive

    1271
    from the Viceroy of India, and which will be presented in order to completely furnish the information which I agree ought undoubtedly to be laid at once upon the Table. I do not know that I have anything further to say in answer to the noble Marquess; but I can assure him, if he wants assurance, that there is no person more likely to treat the Native States of India with justice, whatever may have been the provocation given, than the present Viceroy, the Marquess of Lansdowne.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (STIRLING AND ST. NINIANS) BILL.

      COMMITTEE.
      House in Committee (according to order).
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND(The Marquess of):I have to ask your Lordships to assent to one or two Amendments upon this Bill. It is to confirm an Order by the Boundaries Commissioners who have been selected under the Local Government (Scotland) Act. The object of the Amendments is simply to make one or two alterations which have been found necessary in consequence of misunderstanding by the Boundary Commissioners in making their Order. One of the misapprehensions was that the boundaries of the Burgh of Stirling were co-terminous as regards the municipal boundaries and the boundaries of the Royal Burgh; and the other was as to an understanding or an arrangement previously come to between the Parishes of Stirling and St. Ninians. With those observations I will ask your Lordships to assent to the Amendments which I now propose.
      Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.

    MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 79.)

      COMMITTEE.
      House in Committee (according to order).
      Clause 1.
      Leap GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment in order to
      1272
      more clearly indicate what the Bill does. In consequence of what was said the other night I think this is necessary. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of communicating with those who are interested in the measure as I should like to have done, and, therefore, I can only propose such Amendments as have occurred to me, and state the reasons why it appears to me most of them ought to be accepted. When we come to the Preamble I wish to insert words not stating that the Act of George IV. was passed, but that it is expedient to amend the Act, and to leave out the subsequent lines with regard to that Act being in force in respect of marriages according to the rites of the Church of England, and to the expediency of altering and amending the Act in the certain particulars mentioned. I also propose to modify the Short Title Clause, which stands that " This Act may be cited as the Church of England Marriage Amendment Act, 1891." That sounds to me an inconveniently long short title. It is really a Bill for improving the condition of things, chiefly in reference to the law affecting marriages by banns in England and in regard to the places in which they are solemnised, or where it is lawful for persons to put up their banns of marriage. The object of providing a short title, of course, is that it shall be short, but it ought not, at the same time, to be made so short as to be misleading; and it appears to me that the best title would be to call the Act " Banns of Marriage Amendment Act." It is substantially an Act for amending the law in reference to publishing banns of marriage and nothing else. There is no occasion to have in the words " Church of England," because there are no other banns published in England.
      Amendment moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out " Church of England," and to insert " banns of."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: It will be obvious to your Lordships that the only objection to what the noble and learned Lord proposes is that this Bill deals with marriages by licence nearly as much as with marriages by banns, and, therefore,

      1273
      I think that that title might be considered rather misleading. For myself, I should prefer putting it" Acts "—in the plural—thus leaving it in the form of " Church of England Marriage Acts." However, if the noble and learned Lord presses his Motion, I shall not object to his words.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I make the suggestion for this reason: I think it better that the short title should indicate what the Bill chiefly does. No doubt the Bill deals also with licences, but in a very small degree. We shall find as we go on that the majority of the clauses have relation to the publication of banns. I may mention, as an instance, that there was an Ecclesiastical Act passed not many years ago, namely, the Clergy Pluralities Act Amendment Bill, as it was called, though it had a great many clauses relating to getting rid of clergymen who do not do their duty, and I think very many of the clergy were much surprised when they found out what had been done. This title might therefore, I think, be allowed to go for amending the law relating to banns of marriage without reference to licences. Probably it could be still more shortly cited as the " Marriage Amendment Act, 1891," and I will move to omit the words " Church of England " from the title.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 2.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Clause 2 is, I think, quite unnecessary, and is not altogether correct. But, perhaps, it is enough to say it is unnecessary, because the Act does not say, in fact, either directly or indirectly, anything about any marriages except those performed according to the rites of the Church of England. This clause is, therefore, entirely superfluous. Besides that, there are other technical difficulties which I do not think it right to trouble your Lordships with now.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: The real purpose of the clause is to fix the date from which the Act shall apply.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The date cannot be fixed so exactly in this way, because marriages by licences or banns
      1274
      may be performed at any time within three months after the licence has been got or the banns put up. What you really want to provide for, I suppose, is that the Act shall come into operation at a certain time. In an Act of this sort, which is purely an enabling one, there does not seem to be any objection to the Act coming into operation when it has received the Royal Assent; but if anybody thinks it worth while to provide that the Act shall come into operation on a certain day, it must not be done in this way; for there will be one kind of law in existence when people begin to put up their banns, and another kind of law in existence when they come actually to be married. That is rather inconvenient, I think.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think, perhaps, after what has been said, it would be better that this clause should go out now; and if it is necessary to put in something else in substitution for it, we can do so in Standing Committee.
      On Question, that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, negatived.
      LORD GRIMTHORPENow, my Lords, as Clause 2 has gone out of the Bill, it seems to me this is a better place to put in the Interpretation Clause than at the end. I confess, when I first read the Bill, I was a good deal puzzled by some of the phrases use in it. By the last clause but one (Clause 19), it is required that copies of the Act shall be sent to the ministers of every parish in England, one of them to be kept with the marriage register by the clergymen where banns are to be put up, and so on. It is desirable, I think, that it should read as easily as possible, and, as it is a very common thing to put the Interpretation Clause at the beginning of Acts of Parliament, I think this would be a convenient place for it. Therefore, I propose to insert here some interpretations. I will take them separately. The first would be this, that " in this Act the following words shall mean or include the following things, unless the context otherwise requires." Then it goes on to define "church." That is the material word all through the Act; " Church' shall mean a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages

      1275
      may lawfully be solemnised." But, as there has been some question raised on account of some small number of those churches and chapels where one is now lawful without the other, it is, perhaps, necessary to add, " or banns be published," I must ask your Lordships' permission to explain a little on that point. There is a clause in an Act of 6 George IV. which recites that there were a certain number of small chapels which had the privilege of performing marriages .without having the banns published in them. They were allowed to continue the privilege by that Act, which had been destroyed by the previous Act of 4 George IV. unintentionally. I suppose Marriages were allowed to be performed in churches in which the banns had been lawfully published. I therefore propose to add here the words, " or which banns have been published." That will include other places than churches.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I had supposed that the noble and learned Lord had overlooked the fact to which he has referred when he wrote his Amendment; and, after consulting my advisers, I thought it would be best corrected by making an alteration in the definition of the word " parish," but I do not object to what is proposed here.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then, my Lords, the next is the definition of the word " parish." It is desirable to add at the end some other words. I propose that " parish " shall mean every old undivided parish, and every one from which another has been cut off and has become the whole or pert of a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes under any Act of Parliament. That embraces both parishes under Lord Blandford's Act, and also parishes which have become so under special and Private Acts of which I know there are some existing. Then it goes on—" and every such new parish in which there is a church where marriages may lawfully be solemnised," and I propose to add "or banns published."
      THE BISHOP of LONDON: I think it would be a little better if the noble and learned Lord would consent to this alteration: that, instead of " every one," we should say " every old and undivided parish and every old parish from which a part has been cut off."
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will tell your Lordships why I do not put in the word " old " there. A parish may have a slice cut off when it is anything but old. If you keep in the word " old " it has a kind of technical meaning, and there may be some difficulty in construing it afterwards.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I would rather have the words " every parish."
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: That may be, but I want to get rid of the word " old." Let it be, if you like, " every parish from which any portion has been cut off."
      THE CHAIRMAN: Then it will read, "and every parish from which any portion has been cut off and has become," and so on.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Yes. Then the next definition is—
      " Usual place of abode' shall mean any ordinary residence of the person referred to whether he has more than one or not, or his residence for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding his making an affidavit or declaration of residence to lead a licence or applying for publication of bands."
      It would be better, instead of using the word "residence," to keep the same word as is used in other cases—" usual place of abode." Those are the words used in other Acts. But I thought that as the word " usual " alone would allow of some laxity of interpretation, it would, perhaps, be as well to put in " for fifteen days immediately preceding." Of course, where a person has only one ordinary residence, or where he generally dwells, that would be sufficient. The reason I have put in those words is that there has been found a practical difficulty arising from the fact that people have been afraid to go away from their homes during the 15 days previous to the celebration of the marriage for fear they should be held to be breaking the Act. I think the proviso will be sufficient for the purpose, but I will await what may be said upon it by the right rev. Prelate. I put it in that way that his usual place of abode shall be for this purpose his residence for 15 days immediately preceding his making the affidavit of residence in applying for a licence or for publication of banns. I think we had better, perhaps, add another definition to that which may be taken separately, for the phrase " where they generally dwell." I would

      1277
      therefore, put it in this form if the right rev. Prelate does not object, " usual place of abode or where they usually dwell," omitting the words "for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding."
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: do not object to that.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The next is the definition of the word " minister." I am not quite sure, but I am inclined to think that during the absence of the incumbent of the parish the " principal curate " would be enough. I should have thought the principal curate was the proper person to put in, not any curate who may be acting in the parish.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I think myself it would be better, because the clergyman acting may not always be the principal curate; if the noble and learned Lord does not object, that during the absence of the incumbent " minister" shall include any curate or other officiating minister of the parish or church.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Very well.
      Moved, " That the following New Clause:
      In this Act the following words shall mean or include the following things, unless the context otherwise requires:

      " Church " shall mean a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised, or in which banns have been published:

      " Parish " shall mean every old undivided parish, and every parish from which any portion has been cut off and has become the whole or part of a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes under any Act of Parliament, and every such new parish in which there is a church where marriages may lawfully be solemnised:

      " Usual place of abode " shall mean any ordinary residence of the person referred to, whether he has more than one or not, or his residence for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding his making an affidavit or declaration of residence to lead a licence or applying for publication of banns:

      " Minister," except with reference to fees due to the incumbent of the arish, shall include during his absence any curate or other officiating minister of the parish or church.

      —stand in substitution of Clause 2,"—(The Lord Grimthorpe,)—agreed to.
      Clause 3.
      Verbal Amendments made.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I have an Amendment with regard to the publication of banns in the ecclesiastical parish where the parties dwell. I propose this Amendment with the view to minimise what I regard as the very singular position of the Marriage Law rejecting the residence as the usual place of abode. A man may have had his abode in a parish for 20 years and may be thoroughly well known to everybody there, but a fortnight before the publication he moves jute another parish where he is unknown, and his residence would, of course, be there. Thereupon the banns are published in the parish of his new pl ice of residence where people cannot possibly know anything about the man, or his character, or the circumstances under which the marriage takes place. What I propose is, that in every case the man shall be asked what is his usual place of abode, and that upon that inquiry the banns should be published there. If there be no usual place of abode, you might then accept the minimum provision provided in the Act; but I think such a provision as that would remove what I think is rather a scandal in our present law, that is to say, the ease with which a man may leave a parish where he is well-known and go, just before the marriage, to another, where the circumstances of the marriage he is intending to make are unknown. That always proceeds from one of two reasons: either the man has good reasons for keeping his marriage secret, and, of course, in that case no facilities should be given him, or he may wish to be married in some particular church which he may select, and of course there is no reason why he should not be allowed to be married in the church of his choice. But this Bill actually provides that a man may be married in any church within the whole diocese, and, therefore, the minimum period of residence as relating to the latter case ceases to have any real object, and it. remains only to snit the case of those who wish for good reasons, with a view to their known character, to hide the circumstances of their marriage. I think the clause which I propose will

      1279
      meet the difficulty for that purpose, omitting the word " dwell" in this clause.
      Moved,
      In page 1, line 26, to leave out (" dwell") and insert (" have their usual place of abode, or if there be no such usual place of abode then in such church or chapel as may be situated within the parish in which they have had their residence continuously for not less than fifteen days previous to the first publication of the banns.")—(The Bishop of Lichfield.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I confess I am surprised at the proposition of my right rev. Brother, because it would in many cases make the conditions so stringent as to be really very oppressive. To insist upon it would be a hardship in a great many cases, and to require a continuous residence within the parish of not less than 15 days previous to the publication of the banns, and only to allow the publication there if the man confessed he had no usual place of abode would curtail the liberty of the subject in regard to marriage very greatly indeed, and the result would be to drive a great many more people to the Registrar's office than are driven there at present. Therefore, I am not very well disposed to accept this Amendment.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I quite agree with what has been said by the right rev. Prelate who spoke last. If you begin introducing these things into the law it would lead to a tremendous and almost boundless tyranny. What is it to us where people may choose to get married? Everybody has a right to get married as they please—of course, not within the prohibited degrees; and I am very glad to find that the right rev. Prelate who spoke last declines to accept the Amendment, and that he is inclined to defend the liberty of the subject instead of allowing this aggression upon it.
      THE BISHOP or LICHFIELD: I do not press the Amendment.
      on question, that the word " dwell" stand part of the Clause, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have an Amendment, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out " the persons to be married," and insert " they." This is more of a grammatical nature than anything else, but it is no use loading the clause with unnecessary words. It cannot possibly make any difference, because you go
      1280
      on to provide that "Where the persons to be married shall dwell in divers ecclesiastical parishes" the banns shall be published in the church of the parish where each of them dwell. You have already, therefore, provided for it; but I should prefer the common word " different " to " divers."
      Amendment moved, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words (" the persons to be married ") and insert (" they.") —(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have another Amendment—to leave out " ecclesiastical " and " chapel " with any connecting word throughout the Bill. They occur several times in this clause.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think it would be better not to omit the word " ecclesiastical " here, because, as I happen to know, there is perpetual confusion among people between the old parish and the new ecclesiastical parish taken from it; and what is meant here is distinctly the ecclesiastical and not the other parish.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think it would be well to avoid confusion, but I should like to say a few words before we get to the consideration of " ecclesiastical parishes." It is suggested to me by a very high authority that I was right in the opinion I have expressed with regard to the word "divers." That word implies a good many, and the parties in these cases will certainly not reside in a good many, though they may in two different parishes. I beg, therefore, to substitute that word.
      Amendment moved, in line 27, to omit ("divers,") and insert (" different.") — (Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Now with regard to the word " ecclesiastical," I think it safer to leave the word out throughout the Bill, than to put it here and there only. As we have already defined that the word " parish " means ecclesiastical parish, we had better not, I. think, raise a question about it by sticking in " ecclesiastical " in one or two places.
      Amendment moved, in lines 23 and 25, to leave out the word " ecclesiastical."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I propose, after Clause 3, to insert a clause, which is really necessary, however it may be done. The way of doing it I am willing to leave to the right rev. Prelate; but I would say this: I do not think I made it quite as plain as I ought to have clone on the Second Reading that in a great many churches there is now, practically, no legal or proper way of publishing banns at all. In many churches there is very often no Communion Service at the common Morning Service, and your Lordships also know the Nicene Creed occurs in what is popularly called the ante-Communion Service. Consequently, if that Creed is not read, there is absolutely no legal time for publishing banns In some cases they are published at the conclusion of the second lesson, and in others at the conclusion of such Morning Service as they have. That is all irregular, but I know that for a long time the practice prevailed of publishing the banns always after the second lesson till Baron Alderson, when the case came before him, pronounced it illegal, except at Evening Service under the Act of 4 Geo. IV., c. 76, and that stopped it These things grow up by degrees, but I can hardly think anybody would wish to go on in an illegal manner after his attention has been called to the fact. The practice in this respect has grown up by the change of habit in dividing the Morning Prayers. It would be quite absurd to publish banns of marriage at an early Communion Service, the very object being to give publicity at a time when the congregation in the church is largest. I think it is quite plain that the time has come when there ought to be fresh legislation on this point, and the first thing for us to do is that we should make up our minds at what period of the service it is best that banns should 'be published in order to secure the greatest publicity. I do not think anybody will deny that the way I have proposed to do it here is the best method of doing it.
      1282
      I am only proposing to follow the course which was followed in the Act of George IV., adapting it to the circumstances which have altered considerably since that time. In the first place, the time fixed for publishing banns should, of course, continue to be on Sundays. Let me tell those who do not know it that an alteration was made in the Act of George IV. upon the canons made in Convocation, which some persons fancy are to govern us, but which have never done so. The canons allowed holy-days; the Acts of Parliament do not. It should be done on Sundays after the Nicene Creed has been said at the usual Morning Service, and I suppose we should be right in saying, " at the usual Morning Service after ten o'clock, or, if that Creed should not be used at that service," which would provide for the case of every church in London, at the end of the Morning Service, then the banns shall be published at the end of Evening Prayer, if there is no such Morning Service, as was done in the Act of George IV. But since then another change has taken place. There has come into fashion the holding of two afternoon or evening services; and of the two the later or, as it is more commonly called, " Evening Service," in distinction from the earlier afternoon service, is much preferred, and is, therefore, the time when the greatest publicity can be secured for banns. Therefore, I propose that they shall be published in the evening, the latest service of the day. That is as commonly understood, but then comes in another change of fashion. In order to meet the wishes and habits of various people, some of the clergy have not only early Morning Services but what they call " Midnight Services," and it is necessary to "provide for those cases. If, therefore, we say " the latest service of the day before 9 o'clock," and "at the usual Morning Service after 10 o'clock," we shall have provided against both publishing banns at Midnight Services, and before 10 o'clock in the morning, which are not convenient for the purpose. I do not know that I have anything further to say beyond this, that if anybody objects to adding this at all, all I can say is that Parliament has done these things ever since the time of Edward I., or rather since Henry VIII.
      Amendment moved,
      After Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
      (" The time fur publishing banns shall be on Sundays after the Nicene Creed at the usual morning service after ten o'clock, or, if that creed is not used then, at the end of Morning Prayer. If there is no such morning service, the banns shall be published at the end of Evening Prayer at the latest service of the day before nine o'clock."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should not object to the insertion of this clause if the noble and learned Lord will give some freedom to bring it more into accordance with the modern practice. I would suggest instead of saying if the Nicene Creed is not used " At the end of Morning Prayer," that it should be " After the second lesson at Morning Prayer," and instead of saying "At the end of Evening Prayer," say " After the Second Lesson at Evening Prayer; " because it is obvious that if you are to publish banns while people are in the act of going out of church it would be practically useless. It is much better not to disturb the present ordinary practice.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have not the least objection. The alteration that it should be done at the end of the Second Lesson was made or supposed to be made by Parliament in the year 1823. The practice went on for a good many years until Baron Alderson decided that it was a mistake. But if the right rev. Prelate prefers that time by all means let it be so. I only thought it would be better to put it at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer, and not to interrupt the prayers by banns.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: That would in some cases be the end of the service. At many services them is no sermon.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: As to publishing banns at the end of Evening Prayer, I think it cannot be conceived how great is the interruption to the solemn thoughts which have been evoked; and if there is any technical difficulty about the expression " At the end of Evening Prayer," as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the publication of the banns might be made at the end of the service. It seems singularly irreverent to many people.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Non nostrum est tantas componere lites—that is all I can say.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not wish to divide the House on this point, but I still think as it is the practice not to do it at the end of the service it would be preferable to put it "After the Second Lesson at Morning Prayer, and after the Second Lesson at Evening Prayer."
      THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In order that somebody who is not sitting on the same Benches as the right rev. Prelates may express an opinion upon this matter, I will say a few words. I hope sincerely your Lordships will give effect to the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate, and enact that the time for the publication of the banns shall be after the Second Lesson. I confess I am somewhat surprised at hearing the argument of the right rev. Prelate who has previously spoken. As far as my experience goes I do not know that anybody who goes to Church has ever felt any feeling of irreverence from the publication of banns at that time. The object being that the banns shall be announced in the most public manner, I cannot conceive any objection to the time as proposed by the right rev. Prelate, as the congregation would then be most numerous, and it is the time which is almost universal in this country, that is after the end of the Second Lesson.
      Amendment amended, to read as follows:—
      "The time for publishing banns shall be on Sundays after the Nicene Creed at the usual morning service at 10 o'clock, or, if that creed is not used, after the second lesson at morning prayer. If there is no such morning service, the banns shall be published after the second lesson at evening prayer."
      Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 4.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose to amend this clause. It says, "When banns shall have been published as aforesaid the marriage shall be solemnised" as provided. I propose to leave out " shall" and to insert " may at any time within three months." "Shall" is obviously wrong, and for the information of all sorts of unlearned people it is

      1285
      +better to tell them at once that it may be within three months as provided by the law already. It is always much better to have a complete Act of Parliament than to refer people backwards and forwards from one to another.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I will accept that.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may at any time within three months.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The next Amendment is what may be called a grammatical or structural one. It seems to be quite unnecessary to have two sub-sections here. I have always protested against unnecessary sub-sections, and I propose to leave out (1) and (2) so that the clause may read straight on. I merely move the omission of those two little numerals.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to move the omission of numbers.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then, as a matter of form, I will move to insert the word " or " in the place of (2), so that it shall read that—
      " The marriage may at any time within three months be solemnised either in one of the churches or chapels in, which the banns shall have been published, or in any other church or chapel,"
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to insert the word " or."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Verbal Amendments made.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps I may put now the omission of the word " chapel " wherever it occurs in this clause with any connecting word.
      Amendments agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is one more Amendment in this clause. It is in the 2nd sub-section, after the words " provided that," leaving out the rest of the clause, and substituting an Amendment. This, again, is for the convenience of reading. It would, I think, be better to let it run in the negative form, that—
      " The marriage shall not he solemnised in a church where the banns have not been published without the consent of the minister
      1286
      nor until seven days after production to him of certificates of publication of the banns at the churches whet e they were published, and "—
      this is omitted by mistake in the Bill— "not forbidden by any person having the right to stop the marriage "—that is a parent or guardian. And then it provides for entry in the banns book. That is all that I propose by this Amendment. I rather infer that the right rev. Prelate wishes to have the place where the marriage is to be solemnised published also. That is in the Bill as it stands, and I make the same remark upon that as I did upon the other part of the Bill, that putting in so many restrictions will only cause unnecessary difficulty. In addition to that it will be extremely inconvenient and tiresome when a great many banns have to be published to have thrust in that " such-and-such a marriage will be solemnised in such-and-such a church," and altogether it will make the thing so disagreeable that there is sure to be some reaction against it, and very possibly the whole will be swept away.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: The reason of the thing is clear enough. In the present condition of matters banns are very often published where the parties are unknown, and those persons, therefore, who have the right of interference have no means of intervening; whereas if the church where the marriage is to be solemnised is publicly announced at the same time as the publication of the banns takes place, it will then be possible for those persons to come forward and take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent the solemnisation of the marriage. Therefore, I think it would be much better that the publication of the banns should include an announcement of the church where the marriage is to take place. I think in the case also of marriages before a Registrar, if the marriage is not to be performed in the Registrar's office it is always necessary to state where it is to be performed. In cases, too, of marriage by licence, the licence contains a distinct statement to that effect. There ought, therefore, I think to be some precautions taken in these cases as is taken in cases of marriage at a Registrar's office, or by licence.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think the right rev. Prelate has not observed that that is exactly what I have done. I provide for an entry to be made in the banns book of where the marriage is to be solemnised; but he wants to have it published in church. Probably the right rev. Prelate knows that that very kind of publicity was first introduced into what I may call the Dissenters' Act; but it was struck out some years afterwards. It was found to be extremely disagreeable. I have exactly followed that precedent here. If the place where the marriage is to be performed is entered in the book, any one interested in the marriage who has heard the banns in the church, can look in the book or ask the clerk, and follow such marriage to the church where it is to take place. But I would further ask: What can the person do if he does follow it? He has no power to do anything at all. He has power to forbid the banns; but when once it comes to the actual marriage he has nothing to do with it whatever. Therefore, it seems to me, that to provide for such announcements is simply wearying the congregation—making the uninterested public who are present, angry, by prescribing that winch does nothing at all; whereas all that is really necessary is provided for in this clause exactly as it is provided for in the Registry Acts.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I do not contend very earnestly for it I confess; but, nevertheless, I know that a large number of people feel that if people are to be at liberty to have marriages performed at any church in the diocese there ought to be very distinct means of ascertaining beforehand where the marriage is to take place. If the noble and learned Lord proceeds on the supposition that where the banns have been published, and the persons who are to be married are in a position in which the marriage would be wrong, it ought to be stopped, but nobody could stop it; that would not be the case where the persons were minors and their parents heard of it. They might not hear of it until the banns were published; but then they should be able to go to the church and stop it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have provided for that by giving the information
      1288
      in the banns book. That is a book which is open to them to look at just as would be the case in the Registrar's office.
      THE ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: Is it not generally taken to be meant by the publication of banns of marriage in a church that the persons named are to be married in that church or the church of the other parish named? It is not supposed that they would be married at perhaps considerable distances away, elsewhere in the diocese, and no doubt the people who heard the announcements would naturally assume that the same custom prevailed in the absence of a statement to the contrary.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Matters of this kind rapidly become the subject of general knowledge, and it would very soon become known that people need not be married at the particular church, but could be married elsewhere, and as I said before, they have only to go and look at the book, and they can see at once.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I shall not make any further objection.
      Amendment moved,
      In line 8 to leave out from (" that ") to the end of the clause and insert (" the marriage shall not be solemnised in any church where the banns have not been published without the consent of the minister thereof, nor until the end of seven days after the production to him of a certificate of due publication of the banns at each of the churches where they were published, and not forbidden by any person having a right to stop the marriage. And an entry shall be made in the banns book before any publication of banns of the church where it is intended to solemnise the marriage, unless it is one in which the banns are published.")—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then after Clause 4 I propose to insert a new clause which is really consequential on what has been done already in reference to the publication of banns. I hope nobody will think hereafter that I am wanting in due respect to great dignitaries, for I propose to give to them the power and duty in this matter of making alterations in the rubrics instead of the Queen's Printers and the authorities of Oxford and Cambridge 'Universities, for the purpose of making the rubrics conform to the Acts of Parliament upon

      1289
      this subject. I now propose that the two Archbishops shall make such alterations in the rubrics relating to the Marriage Service in the Prayer Book as will make them agree with this Act notifying the same to the Queen's Printers and to the Vice-Chancellor of the two Universities in order that they may be printed in the Prayer Book.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should not myself have been willing to put in a clause of this sort. It would seem to be more appropriate for one of the Archbishops to move the insertion of such a clause; but if the Primate is willing to allow it to be inserted I shall certainly not object. If, however, he objects to it I shall support the objection.
      THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I shall not make any objection to it.
      Amendment moved, after Clause 4, to insert as a new clause—
      " The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are hereby authorised, subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, to make such alterations in the rubrics after the Nicene Creed and before and in the Marriage Service in the Prayer Book as will make them agree with this Act, and those rubrics shall be so printed in all Prayer Books after such alterations have been notified by order of Her Majesty to the Queen's Printers and the Vice Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 5.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose that this clause shall read somewhat differently, so that it shall read that the publication of a seaman's banns of marriage may be made in any church in the parish where he usually resides when on land. That was the meaning of the clause as understood on the former occasion.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: That is really a verbal alteration, and I do not object to it.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from (" in ") to the end of the clause, and to insert ("any church of the parish in which he usually dwells when not at sea.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 6.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: This clause raises a question upon which there was
      1290
      a discussion the other night about the information to be given by the parties to the minister. I think all the information we ought to require to be given is that which, in the interest of the public, we are legally entitled to demand. Now, what is it that the public are entitled to demand? They are entitled to know that the marriage is not an illegal one, that it is not within the prohibited degrees, and that the proper persons to consent, where consent is required, have consented. But, my Lords, that requires some qualification, because of the state of the law on the subject. The law was altered by the Act of George IV. from what it had been before. It had been before for some time the law that the consent must be proved as a positive thing. It was then altered by the regulations for putting up the banns, leaving the parents and guardians to object if they thought fit. That was a material alteration, and I think your Lordships would be slow to go back again to the former practice and alter it after, now, a good many years' experience. As I have mentioned previously, it dated back from the time of Lord Hardwick, in the reign of George II. down to the Marriage Act of 1823. Now, beyond that, I confess, in my opinion we have no business to go; and when it is proposed to require that people should tell their ages, may I take the liberty of asking why people should be bound to do that when they are of full age, and to tell their age under penalties for perjury? You are claiming under this Act to do that which is only required for public purposes under the Census—where it really is of consequence that people should state their exact ages. But there is no penalty there. What does it matter to us whether a woman who is going to be married is 25 or 30 or 35? I do not think we should sanction such inquiries as a piece of legislation. I first propose to leave out the words " prior to " the last publication, because the clause is not English, as it stands.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not object.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 28, to leave out (" prior to the ") and insert ("their.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then the next is to leave out the words " of the banns " and from " church" to the end of the clause, inserting instead, a provision that the clergyman may require a written statement signed by the person applying, containing the abodes of the parties within the parish, and a statement that they are both of full age, and if not, whether they have obtained the consent of parents or guardians. That, as I have told your Lordships, is an advance upon the present law; I warn you of that, and it is for you to say whether you like to adopt it or not. It then goes on to pro vide that the person applying knows of no legal impediment by reason of relationship within the prohibited degrees, or from any other cause. The minister, after receiving the statement shall allow the publication to proceed (unless he ascertains it to be false,) and is not bound to ask the parties any further questions, informing them that they are liable to prosecution if they sign such statement falsely. I ought to have mentioned the other night that the Bill as far as this matter goes is founded, I think upon a misapprehension of the Act of 1823, for there is in that Act a power which really seems to me to be big enough as it stands, at least as to the exact place of residence. However, if it is desired to re-enact it here I do not know that it matters. There is a provision there that no parson or curate shall be obliged to publish banns unless the parties shall seven days before the publication deliver a notice in writing stating their true christian and surnames, their place of abode within the parish, and the time they have lived there. If that provision had been borne in mind I cannot help thinking that a good deal of this Bill need not have been drawn. It is riot the first time, I may say, that I. have known instances of a Bill being drawn for the purpose for effecting what there are already sufficient provisions for in the Statute Book. The Dilapidations Act, which has been absolutely condemned by a Committee of the House of Commons, was drawn in entire forgetfulness that in an Act of Elizabeth, provision is made for everything that was really wanted. Here it is done again, but, as I said before, I have no objection to it, because I have no desire to prevent
      1292
      any Statute being made complete on the face of it.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to explain, because the noble and learned Lord made a great point of this the other night, that the form in which this clause with the different questions in its Schedule are cast is not due to any desire on the part of the clergy or on the part of the Bishops to make inquisition into the private affairs of anybody. But the fact of the case is this: the Lower House of Convocation, and afterwards the Upper House with them, represented that it would be of great advantage to have a distinct schedule or form which the parties were to fill up, and accordingly the drawing up of such a form or Schedule was urged, and it was entrusted to legal hands. Of course it may be said I was in fault, and I am perhaps to blame for too implicitly trusting the profession of which the noble and learned lord is a representative, and I should not, perhaps, have left it entirely to legal hands, but should have asked the clergy to do it, and if I had done so the clergy certainly would not have asked such questions as that people should give their ages, because it is surely quite enough to know whether the parties are of full age or not, and with how old a person is precisely, we have no business at all. The reason why the Schedule was drawn in that shape was simply this: It is found in dealing with uneducated people that questions of this sort must be minced up very small for them or else they will not understand what you are about. The idea was that it would be much easier to put it to them in the form of question and answer than simply to leave it in the general form which the clause provides. I do not object to the noble and learned Lord's way of putting it in the least. The result of this, of course, would be that the clergyman would of necessity have the duty of eliciting the information involved in the answers to each one of these questions, which would be inconvenient. But it is obviously very inconvenient not to put in correct form what is required to be filled up. I think it better that we should have a Schedule, but if the noble and learned Lord objects to its form he may work his will upon it, and if the lawyers see any necessity

      1293
      to contend about the matter I can assure them that the Bishops will listen to them with great equanimity. As it is, I really think it would be better to keep the Schedule even if we adopt the noble and learned Lord's proposed clause. That clause is, I think, very well drawn, and I am quite willing to accept it, but I should nevertheless like to put in the Schedule, if the noble and learned Lord does not object, in order that we may have some guidance, and partly, too, for educating the people in the matter. We can amend it, no doubt, and I think with very great effect. I should like to add to the noble and learned Lord's clause what really seems to me of considerable importance, namely, the words that
      " The delivery of such statement to the minister shall relieve him from the duty of making inquiries as to the matters therein contained."
      I think it is of importance that it should be distinctly stated that the clergyman is then to be no longer responsible. He has these things put before him; he has to accept them upon the assurance that any person who makes a false statement will be punished for doing so, and I think that being the case clergymen ought to be distinctly relieved from all responsibility of finding out whether the facts are so or not.
      Loan GRIMTHORPE: That I intended by providing that the clergyman is not bound or authorised to make further inquiry. The moment you provide that a man shall make no further inquiry he ceases to be responsible. I do not think there is anything needed more than that. That has reference to the Schedule, but I am now discussing 6, and certainly, as I understood the other night, such precise inquisition is not desired by the Ecclesiastical Authorities; but the strange thing is that I now find in Clause 6 the age of the parties demanded which the right rev. Prelate says he is willing to give up. I think, therefore, I was right in imputing to somebody or other substantially the inquiries which are directed in Clause 6, and also in the Schedule. If convenient to your Lordships, I am willing to say what I have to say about the Schedule now. It is all very well to make provisions of this kind in reference to places like a Registrar's
      1294
      office where you have all necessary books and Schedules provided at public expense, and officers for the performance of such duties; but who is to provide all that is required for this Schedule here? Are the clergy to do it? Are they to give the attendance required upon all these people? Your Lordships are aware that is not the case now, for the banns are put in through the clerk, and if you do not allow these things to be filled in through the clerk the parties must do it themselves, or the clergyman from such information as he can get. Beyond the suggestion he has made, I understand the right rev. Prelate to be satisfied, otherwise, with my clause.
      THE BISHOP OP LONDON: If it is quite certain as a matter of law that these words will carry it, I desire nothing more.
      Loan GRIMTHORPE: I think your Lordships may take it as a legal dictum, now, that exemption from being bound or authorised to ask any further questions is quite sufficient to relieve from responsibility.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say a few words upon this clause. Hitherto I have refrained from saying anything in the matter because I propose to attend the Standing Committee, where I thought a good deal of this might be much more conveniently discussed and Amendments disposed of; but with regard to this particular Amendment, I am a little apprehensive that if we adopt it in its present language there may be some difficulty arising in regard to requiring a statement in writing of the particulars demanded. Still, anybody who gets a licence has to give these particulars, and I should strongly object, myself, to its being left optional with the clergyman to require these particulars to be furnished for the purpose of public convenience, and in the public interest. I think he ought to be bound to do so. But, as I have said, I would rather not interfere at this stage upon this mere drafting of the Bill, and I merely wanted to point out that the adoption of this clause in the form proposed might lead to difficulty.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: For the present I will propose the Amendment as it is with the understanding that if it is found convenient in the Grand Committee to alter it, I, at any rate, shall make no objection.
      Amendment moved,
      In line 29, to leave out (" of the banns,") and to leave out from (" church ") to the end of the clause and insert (" where they are to he published, may require a statement in writing signed by the person who applied for the banns of the abodes of each of the parties within the parish, and whether they are both of full age, and if not, whether each one who is not has got the consent of his or her father or guardian; and that the person applying knows of no legal impediment by reason of relationship within the prohibited degrees or any other cause. And after receiving such statement the minister shall allow the publication to proceed unless he ascertains it to be false, and he shall not be bound or authorised to ask any further question of the parties, but may inform them that they are liable to prosecution if they sign such statement falsely.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 7.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: It is necessary to move an Amendment to leave out the word " chapel," here, in consequence of what we did in the interpretation clause. It will read " in any church within the diocese," leaving out the intervening words.
      Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, to leave in the words " or in any chapel.
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 8 agreed to.
      Clause 9.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I desire to add some words to Clause 9, providing that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to detract from or qualify the authority in regard to marriage licences, or to affect the legality of any marriage in conformity therewith. I am advised that it is important to protect the Vicar General and other officials in the exercise of their duties that those words should be inserted.
      Amendment moved,
      In page 3, at the end of the clause, add (" and nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to abridge, detract from, or qualify the authority which the said Master of the Faculties or the said Vicar General now has the exercises in issuing marriage licences, or to affect the legality of any marriage solemnised in conformity therewith.")—(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 10 agreed to.
      Clause 11.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose to leave out from " post," in line 26, to the second " to," in line 28, and insert words " providing that the notice shall be sent by the person obtaining the licence." I think that burden ought rather to be imposed upon the person who is to be married than upon the surrogate, unless there is sonic occasion for it.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not object to that.
      Amendment moved, in page 3, line 26, leave out from (" post ") to the second (" to ") in line 28, and insert (" by the person who obtained the same.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: There is a further addition which I propose to make in this clause on page 3, line 28, for the purpose of giving greater security against improper marriages. I suppose the real meaning of all marriage legislation is to facilitate as far as possible the performance of proper marriages, and to render difficult or impossible all illegal marriages. It seems to me that in the absence of anything to prevent it, persons may go to a surrogate and make a declaration and obtain a licence with a very wide range of the sources from which such licences may be obtained, and there are no means whatever except the statement of the persons themselves of ascertaining whether the marriage be a legal and proper marriage or not. One knows very well—I know it painfully well from experience in populous parishes in London for upwards of 20 years, and now in a large diocese for a number of years—that the number of illegal and improper marriages is something enormous, and chiefly because we do not take proper precautions to ascertain the circumstances of the marriage. There is something more, and that is the rash facility with which people take affidavits, and make declarations such as are required before obtaining licences of marriage. It seems to me that to send

      1297
      a notice to a clergyman who is at some distance, in whose church the marriage is to be solemnised, is of comparatively small importance; and I propose that notice should be sent to the incumbent of the parish where the persons applying for the licence have their usual place of abode. There would then, if that were done, be some chance of ascertaining whether the marriage was a legal one or not. Of course the clergyman where the marriage is to be solemnised, ex hypothesi knows nothing about the parties; but the incumbent of the parish where they have resided might know the circumstances; as occurred in one case in a parish of mine where a man wished to marry his grand-niece—and he really did marry her. When I heard of the matter I wrote to tell the surrogate that he must withdraw the licence and get it back. He was able to do so by persuading the old man that it was not a proper marriage, and for a time it was stopped; but after some time had elapsed he was able to get a licence elsewhere. Marriages of an illegal nature are celebrated in hundreds, I might almost say in thousands, in this country, and surely the object of all marriage laws ought to be to prevent persons from contracting illegal and improper marriages. It seems to me not only in this clause, but throughout this Bill, there is very great laxity with regard to obtaining information on those points, and I do not hesitate to say that in some respects this Bill will facilitate improper and illegal marriages unless such precautions as I propose are taken. Care should be taken by somebody to ascertain whether the man is going to contract such a horrible marriage to which I have alluded, or whether mere children are going to marry at the age of 16 or 17. Such cases are of continual occurrence, whereas, if notice of these marriages were sent to the incumbent of the parish where the parties dwell, he might know the circumstances, and perhaps be able to say immediately" This is an improper marriage." Without that I think we shall open the door to an extension of the really painful irregularity, and laxity, now existing.
      Moved—
      In page 3, line 28, after (" granted") to insert (" to the incumbents of the parishes in
      1298
      which the persons applying have had their usual place of abode and also.")—(The Bishop of Lichfield.)
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I quite understand the Amendment, but I do not understand how it is to be enforced. I confess I sympathise with a great deal the right rev. Prelate has said; but consider what his proposal is. Here is a proposal that notice is to be sent to the incumbent of the place where the people reside; no definite time is fixed for it; no penalties are imposed—you dare not put in a penalty; and the whole thing would fall through in a very short time. Why is all that trouble to be given to the incumbents of parishes for no purpose. I cannot think that is a discreet way of legislating.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: In support of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid it would overwhelm incumbents, who are often hardly enough worked, to have numberless notices coming by post saying that people who had lived in his parish were going to be married. I think it would be very hard to put upon them the duty of inquiring and replying to the notices, and that it would be a mistake to insist upon the performance of such a duty.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: After what has been said, I will withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
      Clause 14.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think after the word " diocese " some words ought to be inserted. It is probably my mistake for not looking to it. It will read that where the marriage is by licence, it shall not be necessary to give proof of abode for 15 days in any parish in the diocese, " or compliance with the directions in Section 11." I think it is necessary to insert these words in order to make the meaning of the clause complete.
      Amendment moved in page 4, line 15, after" diocese,"toinsert "or of compliance

      1299
      with the directions mentioned in Section 11 of this Act." —(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 15.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think there is a superfluity of adverbs here. It says, " Any false statement made knowingly, intentionally, and wilfully." It seems to me the words " wilfully and intentionally " are certainly unnecessary. I therefore propose to put it " knowingly " alone.
      Amendment moved in page 4, line 18 and 19, to leave out the words " intentionally and wilfully."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I would ask my right rev. Brother who is to be the prosecutor in these cases. I presume there would have to be a prosecution.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I did not think it would be reasonable to desire that the Public Prosecutor should take up such a matter as this as a question of duty. I do not think Parliament would agree to it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps the Bishops would like to undertake it in addition to their duties under the Clergy Discipline Act.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: This is one more symptom of weakness in the Act. I think all this is in the wrong direction. Too much importance is attached to obtaining information. Everybody knows very well that nobody will come forward to give information in such matters as these merely in the public interest. What is everybody's business is nobody's business.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Another slight Amendment which I propose is with regard to the word " committal." I cannot find the word "committal " used in this sense in the dictionary. We have the commission of offences but the committal of offenders. I therefore propose to insert the word " commission " in its place.
      Amendment moved, in page 4, line 22, to leave out "committal," and insert " commission," agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 16.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: This clause will come out here as the interpretation clause has been put in at the beginning.
      Amendment moved, " To leave out Clause 16."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 17.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wish to add to this clause " or to marriages celebrated by special licences granted by the Archbishops." It is necessary to clearly exempt the Archbishops from the operation of this Act.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Surely that is done already by Clause 9, and by the addition which the right rev. Prelate has already moved. That was done for the express purpose of keeping those powers alive.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: If the noble and learned Lord thinks that is enough I do not want to add it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have no objection to one of them, but the two together seem to be unnecessary.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here again, although I feel the same reluctance to intervene, I will point out that the first part of Clause 17 was not necessary at all, because an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown. With reference to the second part also I am not at all certain that it is required.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Perhaps it would be better to strike it out now. We can re-insert it in Committee.
      THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It might be well to leave that proviso in now.
      Amendment moved,
      At the end of the clause to add (" or to marriages celebrated by special licence granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his successors referred to in statute 4 George IV., chapter seventy-six.")—(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause as amended agreed to.
      Clause 18.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is an unnecessary quantity of description in the first line of this clause. It looks as if a new Act were referred to, whereas it is only the Act called " the principal Act" which has already been referred to in

      1301
      the Preamble. Surely it would be better to say " the provisions of the said Act are hereby repealed so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and no further."
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But surely this is mere drafting. It can all be dealt with in Standing Committee.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: As the Chairman has pointed out "the said Act" has been struck out in the last clause, and we should only be repeating it. I propose the Amendment now and we can alter it hereafter, if necessary.
      Amendment moved, to insert, " That the provisions of the said Act be repealed."
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 19.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is something in this clause which I should like to alter. It provides in line 8 that copies of the Act shall be sent " to the officiating ministers of the several ecclesiastical parishes in England." What I suppose it means is to the ministers of every parish in England. I propose, therefore, to make the alteration.
      Amendment moved, to omit the words "the several ecclesiastical parishes," and insert "every parish."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      SCHEDULES.
      Amendment moved, in page 6, to leave out Schedules A and B.—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I hope the noble and learned Lord will be willing to leave the Schedules in. I did not myself intend to engage the House in mere drafting. Of course, it can be considered in Standing Committee.
      THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCI(Viscount CRANBROOK): I do not think we need go into this now. It might be left for the Committee, and I would advise the right rev. Prelate to be ready with a form in the Schedule, which can be easily filled up and signed by those who desire to have banns published.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      PREAMBLE.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The Preamble is quite contrary to modern usage, and it is quite enough to put in " Whereas it is expedient to amend the Act," and so on, leaving out the other two paragraphs.
      THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Might I suggest that the whole of it might very well be left out. I am told that in well-drawn Bills a Preamble is now omitted. If they say anything, they may do harm, and if they do not say anything, they are of no use. I am informed they are never put in now, as they are never any good.
      On Question, " That this be the Preamble of the Bill," negatived.
      Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed, as amended., (No. 102).

    COLONISATION.

      QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
      THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, r desire to draw your Lordships' attention to a Report of the Committee on Colonisation appointed by the House of Commons which has lately been laid before Parliament, and to ask Her Majesty's Government certain questions which I have .placed upon the Notice Paper. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that within the last ten years public opinion has slowly but, certainly been increasing in regard to the necessity of demanding some assistance from Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of enabling poor but suitable persons to transfer their labour from this country, where in certain cases it is not needed, to other countries where it can be made available for the benefit both of the individuals who emigrate and of the general community. In this country there are certain districts as your Lordships' are aware in which the population may be said to be in a very-congested condition, as for instance some districts in the Highlands of Scotland, certain places in the West of Ireland, and certain portions of our large towns. It has been felt by many that if this congested population could by some means be transferred to those broad and fertile fields which are to be found in Her Majesty's Colonies, fields which are

      1303
      awaiting labour, and which at present are unfruitful owing to the impossibility of getting hands sufficient to cultivate them, a double benefit would be conferred; a benefit would be conferred upon this country by enabling those left behind to earn higher wages, and a benefit would be conferred upon the colonies by enabling them to develop the immense resources which lie at their command, while at the same time a further benefit would be conferred upon the artisans of this country, inasmuch as those who transfer themselves to the distant shores of Canada or Australia having acquired British tastes would certainly buy British products, and would thus create;those markets which it is necessary for this country to possess. I would desire to lay great stress upon the difference between simple emigration and colonisation. The colonies have shown over and over again that they do not desire that large masses of the population of this country should be sent to their shores without any care being taken to see that they do not glut the labour markets of those distant countries; but they have never shown any hostility to colonisation, when colonisation has been explained to them to mean the placing of suitable persons with their families upon those uncultivated lands, and enabling those people by providing them with houses, with seed, with implements, and with sufficient funds to tide over the time until the crops which they have sown shall bring in the reward of their labour. I say that when the colonies have been shown that this can be done, they have always received such propositions with favour. This public feeling gradually increased until it resulted in the formation of a body which was created for the purpose of urging upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of some such policy as that which I have sketched, and in 1886 Her Majesty's Government took the first step towards assisting colonial emigration by the establishment of an Emigration Office, which since that time, at a small expenditure of £500 a year, has done most valuable service—service which is recorded in the Report to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention. It is one of the recommendations of the Committee on Colonisation which issued
      1304
      the Report that this 'office should be continued, and that the amount given to it should be increased. In 1887, the year after the formation of this Emigration Office, 32 Peers and 135 Members of the House of Commons formed themselves into a body for the purpose of still further urging Her Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of giving increased aid to colonisation. The result of this was that Her Majesty's Government in the following year undertook to establish a scheme of Crofter Colonisation, and gave £10,000 for that purpose (placing the scheme under the direction of the Scotch Office), on condition that £2,000 were subscribed from other sources. Four Commissioners were appointed by Her Majesty's Government to constitute this Colonisation Board, one representing the Imperial Government, one representing the Canadian Government, one representing the private subscribers, and another representing three of the principal Land Companies in Canada. It was proposed at the time to make advances of £120 to each family. The repayment of that sum was to be made in eight annual instalments at the rate of £20 17s. 8d., and the first repayment was not to be asked for until the fifth year. In the Report to which I am alluding, your Lordships' will see it is stated that this £120 has not been found sufficient, and it is now thought that from £150 to £180 per family is what will be required, the repayment of that sum being secured on the 160 acres of land which the Canadian Government gives free to any person who chooses to settle upon them. Seventy nine families have thus been settled in Manitoba by Her Majesty's Government in 1888 and in 1889. In 1888 the Colony of Killarney was established; and in the year following the colony of Saltcoats, which is about 200 miles further to the West beyond Killarney. The next step, I have to mention, taken by Her Majesty's Government, was to appoint in 1888 the Select Committee, which has drawn up the Report I am now inviting your Lordships' attention to, and whose Chairman was Sir Jas. Fergusson. That Committee consisted of 21 Members. This is the third Session that the Committee have sat. They have examined a large body of witnesses, 54 in number, they have entered into

      1305
      the question with the greatest possible care, they have heard the opinions of persons possessing very different views—those who advocate emigration and those who hold with colonisation; and I am thankful to say as one, who, from the first has advocated colonisation, that the Report of the Committee appointed by Her Majesty's Government was distinctly in favour of State Colonisation. At the conclusion the Report states—
      " The Committee are of opinion that the success of the Canadian experiment is sufficiently established to justify a further despatch of a moderately numerous party."
      With regard to the advantage of colonisation over emigration the Report says—
      "That Colonisation would seem to be the remedy which is most acceptable in the majority of cases, and one which would meet with the least resistance in our Colonies and elsewhere."
      I am not at this late hour going to detain your Lordships at any length, but I simply propose to draw your attention to the three principal recommendations made by this Committee. The first and most important to my mind is the recommendation made by the Committee that Her Majesty's Government should accept a proposal made to them by the Colony of British Columbia which has asked for an advance of £150,000 bearing interest at 2¾ per cent. and guaranteed by that flourishing colony. This offer for some reason or other was not accepted at the time it was made, and I do not understand why Her Majesty's Government failed to accept an offer which to my mind seems a most favourable one considering what are the resources of this flourishing colony, and considering that the colony were going to take the entire responsibility of placing some 1,250 families upon the land. I hope now, the Report being so distinctly in favour of this proposal, that Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the decision which they came to, as far as I understand they did come to a decision formerly, with regard to this matter, and that they will grant the request which has been made to them by that colony. The Report states with regard to that matter—
      " That project"
      that is, the proposal of the Colony of British Columbia—
      " Presents the rare recommendation that it demanded from the public purse or from local funds no assistance beyond the Imperial loan,
      1306
      the repayment of which is guaranteed by a solvent and promising Province, which seems to possess ample resources for the settlement of a large population."
      The Report goes on to say—
      " Your Committee think that in no way could the object recognised as necessary be obtained with less outlay or risk to the National Exchequer, and they can conceive of many considerations in which the colonisation of British Columbia by a maritime population would appear to be desirable in the interests of the British Empire,"
      and they conclude by saying they recommend the offer of British Columbia to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government and Parliament. Then the next and most important matter, to my mind, is the recommendation of the Committee that Her Majesty's Government should not require County Councils, when they borrow money for colonisation purposes, to obtain a local guarantee. The Committee state, and justly state, that the only local guarantee they could obtain would be the local guarantee of the Poor Law Authorities; and, as Her Majesty's Government are well aware, it is most inadvisable that colonisation should be in any way mixed up with the taint of pauperism. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will make the necessary alteration in regard to this matter in the Local Government Act of 1888, which granted powers to the County Councils to expend money for colonisation purposes, but required them to have a local guarantee before they advanced such sums. Then the third, and a most important recommendation, is that the crofter emigration experiment should be tried in Canada; and the fourth is that the emigration of children, especially through the industrial schools, should be encouraged. There are several other recommendations, but I will not go into them now. I will conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of adopting any of the following recommendations contained in the Report of the Colonisation Committee of the House of Commons, and, if so, which of them:—(1) That the Colonisation Board be continued and re-constructed for the purpose of colonisation and emigration; (2) That the congested districts of Scotland, and of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland,

      1307
      form an exceptional case, and require relief by assistance in industries, to colonisation or emigration, and where suitable to migration; (3) That the experiment of colonising the crofter population in Canada should be further tried; (4) That the proposals of the Government of British Columbia (for an advance of £150,000, to bear interest at 2¾ per cent., for the purpose of assisting the colonisation of 1,250 families from this country) should be favourably entertained; (5) That similar proposals from any Colonial Government should be entertained; (6) That the agency of companies for colonisation and emigration should be taken advantage of, both as regards the aforesaid colonisation in Canada and elsewhere; (7) That the Government grant to the Emigrants' Information Office should be increased; (8) That facility and assistance should be given to further the emigration of children; (9) That the Treasury should grant pecuniary aid to industrial and other schools to assist in carrying out the above object.
      THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl has shown what probably your Lordships would not be prepared to dispute—the importance of this subject. I do not think he has quite dwelt sufficiently upon certain difficulties which surround the question, difficulties which must be obvious to anyone who has studied not only the evidence given in the Report of this Select Committee, to which his question refers, but also the Reports and the proceedings of preceding Committees. This Select Committee only reported on the 17th March, and it is obvious, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government have not yet been able to give that full consideration to the question which would enable them to answer conclusively the noble Earl as to whether we are prepared to accept any or all of the recommendations which the Committee have made. It is clear, in the first place, that before Her Majesty's Government can arrive at any decision upon this question, the recommendations of the Committee and their Report must be referred to the several Departments which are directly interested in the question, as, for instance, the Scotch Office, the Irish
      1308
      Office, and the Treasury, who will, after full consideration, present us with their Reports. Now, as regards the, Scotch Department, I may refer to the answer which was given by the Lord Advocate on Monday, April 20th, in the House of Commons in answer to a question whether the Secretary of State had been in communication with the Government of Canada or other Colonial Governments, in order to complete arrangements as to colonisation. The Lord, Advocate answered that—
      " The consideration of all proposals for State-aided emigration from the congested districts of Scotland was postponed by the Government till they bad before them the Report of the Select Committee on Colonisation. That Committee has lately issued its Report, and the Government have now under consideration the recommendation which it contains."
      I believe that further communication and correspondence have taken place with the Scotch Office, and possibly the Marquess of Lothian, if it is desired, will state at what stage the matter has arrived. I may also refer the House to the answer which was given by the right hon. Mr. Smith in the House of Commons, in answer to a question of much the same tenour as the one now put by the noble Earl, but confined to the proposals of the Government, by Mr. Parker Smith. He stated that—
      " The Government have not yet had sufficient time to fully consider the Report of this Committee, but it is obviously too late this year to select families for emigration. It will, however, be necessary for the Government, before the autumn, to go into the question, if emigration is to take place before spring, and I hope it may be in my power before the House finally rises to make some statement of our intentions."
      Therefore, my Lords, the general reply to the noble Earl's question is that Her Majesty's Government have not yet had time to give full consideration to the matter; but he may rest assured that. we recognise the importance of the subject, and that we will as soon as possible arrive at some decision upon it. I may say that, as far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government concur with the noble Earl upon this point; that they view with greater hope of success any system of colonisation than that of mere emigration; and as regards the crofters, as the noble Earl himself has pointed out, the Government have shown their complete approval of the principle of assisted

      1309
      emigration for congested districts by the action they have taken in two successive years. I have no reason to suppose that the Government have in any way changed their views; but, on the contrary, I should think they would be willing to consider how far that system, which I gather from the noble Earl has worked well, can be extended. With respect, also, to the proposal of British Columbia, the Report of the Select Committee shows that the terms which the Treasury desired were not agreed to—I think it was a question of amount of interest —but it is clear from that Report, and from what has passed, that Her Majesty's Government viewed with favour a proposal of that kind from a province so well able to ensure the performance of their agreement as British Columbia, or from any colony equally able and willing to give such ensurance. I think I may add with reference to the question, why nothing has been done since 1888, when Mr. Begg first communicated with Her Majesty's Government, that, as I think was announced by the right hon. Mr. Goschen in the other House, it was thought better, as a Select Committee had been appointed, that before agreeing to any proposal Her Majesty's Government should wait until the Select Committee had reported. I believe that Mr. Begg is corresponding now with the Scotch Office, and that further proposals have been laid before them, and I can assure the noble Earl we sincerely hope that some satisfactory arrangement may be made not only with British Columbia, but on similar terms with other colonies. Before I sit down I should like to express my hearty concurrence with the noble Earl in his praise of the excellent work that is done by the Emigrants' Information Office, and to say also that I hope we may be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the very moderate sum which is now given to it, so that we may have branches established in the principal towns in the country. I can assure the noble Earl that most careful consideration will be given to the subject, as we fully recognise its importance.
      THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, when I saw this Notice on your Lordships' Paper, in the name of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, I thought that probably he would not merely put
      1310
      a formal question as to whether the Government could or would adopt the recommendations of the Committee, but that he would also go somewhat into an examination of the remarkable evidence which is contained in that Report and. summarised in it; and I came down to the House to-night prepared to lay before your Lordships some very interesting and important facts with which I am personally acquainted, in addition to those brought forward before the Committee, and showing the immense importance of the subject, at least as regards particular districts in Scotland. But really, my Lords, I think in the present condition of the House, it would be absurd to go on with a discussion which could only be very languid and perfunctory. Many noble Lords have left the House who would probably be interested in the districts which I have mentioned. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches has not entered upon that part of the subject at all; he has simply dealt with the recommendations of the Committee. I must say that better work has never been done, in my judgment, by any Committee of the House of Commons than that which sat and produced this Report. I think it a matter of extreme importance that the House should be put in possession of the facts, this being a matter which affects many local interests. Many Members of the House, probably, have not read the evidence, which is bulky, and I shall certainly propose, at a later day in the Session, to bring the matter specially before the House, not merely with reference to these recommendations of the Select Committee, but with regard to the facts which they had in evidence before them. I was very glad to see that this subject had been taken up by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, because his name is a sufficient guarantee that it was taken up with no merely political or Party object, and not in reference to fads of any kind, but that it was a matter of pure philanthropy and benevolence on his part, for he is well-known now to be connected with the work of practical philanthropy—more so, perhaps, than any other Member of this House. At the same time, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that propositions with regard to emigration have been more or less connected with

      1311
      political questions at the present time, and, therefore, I think it would be better, in bringing the question before the Government, that we should lay before them our view of the facts with which they have to deal. Some of the facts connected with the question of colonisation, and of emigration of the crofters from the Highlands and Western Islands of Scotland, are very remarkable, more especially in reference to Lewis. I shall not go into them to-night, hut simply give notice that on a later day I shall call the attention of the Government to this subject, and to the Report of the Select Committee.
      THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Duke who has just sat down was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to bring this matter before the House with regard to the reforms in Scotland; but as he has told your Lord-snips, he proposes to defer the question mentioned in his notice to a later period in the Session, I think it is unnecessary for me to enter upon the subject of it. At the same time, I should like to say a few words with reference to the question which ' has been put by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies with regard to emigration, or rather, colonisation. He has drawn your attention to the very able Report of the Committee upon that subject, and it is exceedingly gratifying to me to find, after all the care which the Committee gave to the consideration of the questions with regard to colonisation and emigration, it is distinctly stated in their Report that the success of the experiment in Manitoba had been so so decided as to induce them to recommend that the scheme should be further continued. I cannot go fully into the matter now; perhaps on some future occasion I shall have the opportunity of doing so; but I may mention to your Lordships the great difficulties which I had in carrying out that scheme. The principal difficulty was caused by the fact that Her Majesty's Government were then unable with the information at their disposal to give me the funds necessary for carrying out the scheme at the proper time of the year. With regard to the observations which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has just made, I hope to be able to induce
      1312
      the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put funds at my disposal at such a time of the year as will enable the scheme to be carried out successfully. If the scheme is to be successfully carried out, the funds must be placed at our disposal at a proper period of the year, before the emigrants go out. In order to make the scheme successful, it is absolutely necessary that the ground should be prepared for occupation. One of the principal difficulties experienced was that when the crofters went out, the ground, in consequence of the shortness of the time, could not be prepared. The time for preparing it is in the month of June. The soil being virgin in those places requires to be turned over twice, once in June and once later in the autumn. With the view of turning over the soil and making the necessary preparations, it is absolutely essential we should be in a position to know how maw families are to be emigrated. We cannot spend money in turning over the soil upon these different holdings in Canada without knowing whether they are going to be occupied or not, and, therefore, it is perfectly clear that if necessary preparations are to be made we must know within two months of the time, at the very least, how many families are to be emigrated during the year. If that is not done the experiment must be carried out at greater cost than is necessary and at the risk of the grumbling on the part of the crofter families who are being sent out which we have constantly heard of. There is another reason why I think it is exceedingly desirable that nothing should be done hurriedly, because unless preparations are made in such a way as to enable the emigrants to rely upon themselves during the, winter months it will be necessary to provide for them in the way of clothing and the means of substenance. That strikes away the principal object in sending them out, namely, teaching them reliance upon themselves, and to provide for themselves and their families. For every reason, being exceedingly anxious that these recommendations of the Committee in their Report should be carried out, it being necessary that a further sum should be placed at my disposal for that purpose, and also that the scheme proposed by just made, I hope to be able to induce the Colony of British Columbia should be

      1313
      carried into effect, I am anxious, if the scheme is to be carried out at all, that the money should be placed in our hands at the earliest possible moment.
      THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am very grateful, indeed, to the noble Lord opposite for having promised that Her Majesty's Government will take this subject into serious consideration, and also to the noble Marquess for all he has said. I feel, that if anything is to be done, as the noble Marquess has said, it ought to be done by the Government at once, because between now and June is not a long interval, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into their serious consideration at the earliest possible moment.

      INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c. SITES BILL— [H.L.] (No. 94.)
      Amendments reported (according to order).
      LORD NORTON: My Lords, before accepting the Report I merely wish to ask the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill whether he will on the Third Reading introduce a clause to define its object In a Bill dealing with limited and trust property the object should at least be defined. In this Bill, for conveyance of sites for intermediate schools or other schools sanctioned by Act of Parliament, there is no definition of what such schools are meant to be, nor of the body to whom the sites are to be conveyed. In the Welsh Intermediate Schools Act there are definitions of both, but only as respects that particular Act. Elementary Schools are distinctly defined in the Act of 1870, and I can perfectly well remember in the Office that the definition was often found most useful in withstanding constant attempts to set up private and profitable establishments under the name. There are now unlimited schemes for private advantage under the name of public education, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced only yesterday that, besides his late appropriation of Votes for other purposes to technical education, he is about to propose, under the name of free education, that everybody should be taxed for the education of those
      1314
      who want any kind of education at all publicly provided for them. I maintain that it is a most dangerous mode of dealing with this subject to have no definitions making it clear what the objects of the Bill are. This Bill must have some definition of what it means by intermediate schools, or any schools sanctioned by the Act. It might for the first phrase adopt the Welsh definition; for the last, Heaven knows what it means. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill whether he will promise, on the Third Reading, that he will introduce a clause defining the object of his Bill?
      LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Lord wishes to have a definition of intermediate schools. In the private notice he has given me he says the Act of 1889 contains no definition of an intermediate school, but I would point out to him that the whole Act of 1889 is definition. Among the definitions there are five or six lines of what intermediate education is intended to be for the purpose of the Intermediate Schools Act. The noble Lord says there is no definition in the words " any sanctioned by Act of Parliament and in receipt of aid or monies provided by Act of Parliament," those words were given by the Education Office, and originally stood, "as provided from the Consolidated Fund," but the Chairman of the Standing Committee altered that to "monies provided by Act of Parliament." In deference to, the wishes of the noble Lord, I have prepared an additional clause with that definition, but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Standing Committee says it is unnecessary; and, therefore, I do not propose to move it. If the noble Lord thinks it necessary, he can move it on the Third Reading. The Bill has been considerably altered in Standing Committee, and I wish to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Kensington for the support he gave to the Bill which concerns Wales especially. The noble Lord the Chairman of the Standing Committees has made an improvement in a part of this Bill, which is nothing but a verbatim transcript from the Public Worship and Burial Sites Act, by amending it so that if part of the land is not used that part, but only

      1315
      that part, should revert to the use of the owner. I regret that other Amendments have been made which I think take away a large part of the usefulness of the Bill. In the case of a minor land cannot be given, it must be sold. This alteration is principally due to the wishes of my noble Friend who now represents Mr. Gladstone in this House. But I must say that on this occasion he has not represented Mr. Gladstone properly, because Mr. Gladstone has on all occasions shown a wish to please the Welsh people, and to obtain these schools is an object which they have very much at heart. I have examined into the matter, and have found that there are not many cases of minors in Wales to which this will apply; but there is one place asking for an intermediate school where I believe all the land belongs to one owner, and the provisions of this Bill will prevent him giving the land, or will furnish him with an excuse for not granting it. What I have seen in the 'Standing Committee has I must confess increased my objections to them very much; but I will reserve my remarks in that respect until some occasion when the noble Marquess the Prime Minister is in the House, or until some other noble Lord raises the question.
      THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I only desire to say that I was not the only person who made an objection to this clause of the Bill. I believe the first person who made an objection to it was Lord Herschel], who is not here. Though I quite sympathise with the desire of the Welsh people to obtain these sites for their schools, I do not think it is necessary, in order that their legitimate desires in that direction should be satisfied, that the property of minors should be taken away without proper payment being made for it. It seems to me unreasonable that the property of minors who cannot themselves consent to a gift should be taken away from them by other persons. They can sell the property, and that seems quite sufficient for the purpose of the Bill. As regards the Standing Committees, I think my noble Friend will find there are some noble Lords at all events in this House, at all events who think the Standing Committees are very
      1316
      useful; and I cannot help thinking that the experience we have had this evening in Committee on the Marriage Bill must have caused a great many people to wish that the Bill had gone to a Standing Committee instead of coming before a Committee of the whole House.
      Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

      MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.—(No. 86.)
      House in Committee (according to order): .Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
      TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL—(No. 93.)
      House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
      LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 103.)
      PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a,and to be printed. (No. 104.)

      COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
      Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee the Lords following:

      M. Bath.

      L. Poltimore.

      M. Ripon.

      L. Leigh.

      E. Winchilsea and

      L. Belper.

      Nottingham.

      L. Sandhurst.

      E. Dundonald.

      L. Harlech.

      E. Yarborough.

      L. Rowton.

      E. Strafford.

      L. de Vesci.

      E. Ravensworth.

      (V. de Vesci.)

      V. Sidmouth.

      L. Northington.

      L. Lovaine.

      (L. Henley.)

      (E. Percy.)

      L. Rothschild.

      L. Carrington.

      L. Sandford.

      Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
      House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.