HL Deb 24 April 1891 vol 352 cc1271-302

House in Committee (according to order).

Clause 1.

Leap GRIMTHORPE

My Lords, I have to move an Amendment in order to 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, 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 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 GRIMTHORPE

Now, 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 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 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:

—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 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 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. 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 +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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).

Forward to