Bill was to abolish the ancient system | great swell, who did not begrudge to of proclamation of banns of marriage pay an extra pound or two, who could in Scotland, which had existed for cen- secure the thing being hurried over and turies under various Christian Churches. done in one day. But the hon. Member It was a custom that was not confined to for Glasgow was aware that the Church Scotland; the same law prevailed in Eng- of Scotland had issued instructions to land and Ireland; and he was not aware all congregations belonging to that comthat the Episcopal Church in England, munion to the effect that all proclamaor the Roman Catholic Church in other tions should be for three days, and it countries, stood in that respect in a had reduced the fee to a uniform sum of more favourable position than Scotland. 28. 6d. He had no doubt that in quoad Neither of those Churches would marry sacra churches that was to be the maxiuntil they had proclaimed to the world mum; and he believed the day not to be the intended marriage. The Bill pro- far distant when the proclamation of posed not only to abolish the present banns would be done for nothing. Morelaw, but to substitute for it another-over, it was necessary in the case of namely, that of simply registering the intention of marriage in the books of the Registrar appointed for registering births, deaths, and marriages. The reason given for this great change was stated in the Preamble of the Bill to be publicity. The hon. Member had said in addition that his object was likewise to secure economy. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) thought he should be able to show that the method proposed by the hon. Member would not secure greater, but rather less, publicity than at present; while it would entail additional expense upon those who were contemplating marriage. The hon. Member for Glasgow had stated that the present system did not give publicity, because proclamations were made before the congregation had met, and were read over three times so hurriedly that few people knew what was taking place. Now, that was not his experience of the manner in which the law was carried

out.

DR. CAMERON said, that what the hon. Member referred to was to be found in the Report of the Commis

sioners.

MR. ORR EWING said, that in that case the Report of the Commissioners, and not the hon. Member, was wrong. The law was that the proclamation should be on three different Sundays; but there were some cases in which that was not insisted upon. Nor was it insisted upon in England-because special privileges might be obtained by the payment of a fine. But according to the regulations of the Established Church in Scotland, there ought to be a proclamation upon three Sundays; and that was the rule invariably followed in the case of 99 marriages out of every 100. It was only a

parties intending to get married who resided in different parishes that the proclamation should be made in each parish. Now, what was the intent of this Bill? It was to enable parties to register their intended marriage in the common register, a copy of the proclamation to be placed outside the walls of the registry office. Now, he (Mr. Orr Ewing) would ask any hon. Member who was acquainted with registry offices in great towns-small offices situated in obscure streets through which the people seldom passed-whether it was at all likely that the general community or those interested in a particular marriage would know anything about it? By the rules of the Church, the proclamation of banns would now be made for three Sundays, when the congregation was gathered together and the clergyman had ascended the pulpit, and he must say he did not know of any system which could be adopted that would give greater publicity than that. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow stated that the expense incurred was upon an average 10s. 8d. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) did not know where he got his information, but that which he had himself received did not agree with it. He could assure the House that in the country districts such fees were altogether unknown. But whatever fees might have been charged hitherto, hon. Members knew that it was the resolution of the Church that they should be cut down to 2s. 6d.-and under his hon. Friend's Bill they would amount to 2s. 1d. But his hon. Friend stated in his speech that he did not intend to interfere with the Church making such regulations as they thought proper, regarding the proclamation in the Church. If that

SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONE seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day three months."-(Mr. Orr Ewing.)

were so, would it not entail an additional | pointed to inquire into the subject. But expense? The fact was that the real he (Mr. Orr Ewing) felt so strongly object of this Bill was to take away the in regard to the principle of this Billprivilege which belonged to the Estab- that it proposed to alter a system which lished Church of Scotland in order to had worked well hitherto, and which the put Dissenting bodies on terms of equality people did not desire to see changedwith it. Now, he was perfectly prepared that he felt bound to oppose the second to put Dissenting Churches upon terms reading. He desired to see the marriage of perfect equality with the Established service in Scotland remain as it had Church upon every question which did hitherto been, a religious service, and not affect the principle of an Established that the ministers of all denominations Church, and had the hon. Member should take a deep interest in the union brought in a Bill to give to the Dissen- of the members of their respective flocks ters of Scotland the same privilege en- in marriage. He did not desire to see joyed by the Church of Scotland to pro- that which he looked upon as a holy service claim the intention of marriage on the secularized by the simple registration of part of their own members, he would the intentions of the people in a registry have given it his most hearty support. office. For these reasons, he begged to But the hon. Member did not like the move that the Bill be read a second system of levelling up-what he sought time that day three months. was a levelling down:-and accordingly he had brought in this measure to do what could not help proving to be very injurious. Although the people of Scotland did not believe that marriage was a sacrament, yet they did feel that it was the holiest union that could exist between human beings; and that while it was a solemn ceremony and ought to MR. BAXTER said, there could be no be conducted by religious service, still reason for referring the law respecting that every facility should be given by the proclamation of banns of marriage the law to persons to be married. Never- to a Select Committee or any other tritheless, very few irregular marriages bunal. The law was perfectly well known, took place, for the people preferred to and the question was an extremely be married by a clergyman in a regular simple and plain one. His hon. Friend way. He thought the present system the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had worked well in Scotland, and that in a very interesting address had enthey ought not to make this revolu- tirely exhausted the subject, both as tionary change without some far stronger regarded its history and the present poground being shown for it than that re-sition of the law. He therefore had not lied upon by the hon. Member for Glasgow. He would also point out that the House, in approving the principle of this Bill, would invade the spiritual right of the Church. Parliament and the State had never interfered with the Church in laying down its own regulations as to how its members should be married. If it were thought desirable to make a change in the marriage laws of this country, it was the duty of the Government to introduce a Bill for that purpose; but he must protest against that being done by a side wind. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had put down an Amendment that, while not refusing to read this Bill a second time, it was desirable that a Committee should be ap

Mr.Orr Ewing

the slightest intention of troubling the House with a long speech upon that occasion; but he must say that he had long thought that the law with respect to the proclamation of banns in Scotland was in a very unsatisfactory state. Indeed, he thought it was some reflection on Scotch Members that not one amongst them had taken up the question long ago. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) said the proclamation of banns in churches was an ancient and time-honoured institution. Well, probably when it was instituted it was not only the best, but the only mode of securing publicity. But his hon. Friend altogether passed over the fact that circumstances had entirely changed in Scotland. So far from considering that the proclamation was of any

that the proposed mode of publishing the banns will not give the publicity which the hon. Member seeks. I admit a great deal of what the hon. Member for Glasgow stated, as to the objectionable nature of the present system. The high charges in many cases have been most improper. The publishing of the banns thrice on one Sunday is also in my opinion most improper. I wish to remind the House, however, that this proposed step is an important one which affects not Scotland only, but the other two Kingdoms. I hope the House will be cautious before such a step is taken, for we are asked to alter in this hurried way a system which has existed for 300 years. I should like to see this question further inquired into before we legislate upon it, for many reasons—one of which is the recent decision in the House of Lords. I should like myself to see the practice of publishing the banns of marriage extended to all religious bodies, and made as valid in their places of worship as in the Established Church; and I should like to see the certificate of any of their ministers as valid as that of the ministers of the Establishment; but I think further inquiry is necessary. The Bill does not provide for one defect which the hon. Member for Glasgow stated was in the existing law-namely, the absence of registration of marriage. The Bill provides for the registration of the publication of banns, but does not, as far as I can see, make provision for the registration of the marriage when it takes place.

and be as strong after the Bill passed as before; and those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken against the Bill had refuted their own arguments by exposing the defects of the existing law and their willingness to accept changes of equal importance to those proposed by the Bill. The hon. Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Orr Ewing) admitted that the present state of the law afforded no security for that proper publication of the intention of the marriage which the public had a right to expect. This question was not merely one of expediency; it was a question of urgency, for while Parliament was deliberating, the General Assembly was acting-it had already proposed a resolution on this subject; and the question they had to consider was whether this was not an Imperial question, which Parliament should take cognizance of, and which they could deal with in a far more effective manner than the General Assembly. He trusted there would be no obstacle interposed which would prevent this House taking the question up and dealing with it effectively. While saying that much, he honestly confessed that although there was great inconvenience in the present state of the law in populous districts, where the different denominations divided the population, the law afforded a very easy and simple mode of giving publicity to marriage in thinly populated districts. He rose for the purpose of suggesting that the second reading should be assented to, and that the Bill should be put into shape in a DR. CAMERON: If the hon. Gentle- Select Committee. The hon. Member tleman will allow me to explain, I would opposite (Mr. Orr Ewing) was appasay my position is that the registra-rently unnecessarily alarmed at the retion of marriages after they take place peal of existing usages proposed in the is at present amply provided for by the Bill. It would not repeal any usage existing Act. the Church of Scotland chose to insist upon among its own churches--it would only repeal those statutory enactments which established certain preliminaries as a condition of legal marriage. It did not interfere with any privilege which the Church of Scotland could justly claim; but he did think that there was here a fair opportunity of bringing the law more in accordance with that of England, under which banns were proclaimed in churches, but power was given to Nonconformists or others to proceed by another process through the registrar that being an equally of giving publicity to the

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: Then there is no alteration in the law-the Bill does not provide the remedy which I understood the hon. Gentleman to say was required. It repeals the old law. Perhaps I may have an opportunity of moving the Amendment I have on the Paper on a future stage; but, in the meantime I have only spoken to that of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE said, he thought the alteration proposed by this Bill was one which could not be said to affect in any serious way the Church of Scotland. The Church would flourish | legal mode