MR. M'LAGAN said, he did not approve of the details of the Bill, but he thought the time had come when a change was necessary. When the law was passed which insisted that there should be a proclamation of banns in connection with the Church of Scotland, the greater number of the people of Scotland belonged to that Church. That time had passed: now at least one-half of the people of Scotland belonged to Dissenting Churches, and it was therefore absurd to talk of greater publicity being obtained by the proclamation. But the time had come when there should be a change, and if the Bill should be read a second time, he should prefer a scheme like that which had been recommended by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing). He thought such a scheme would be more in accordance with the religious feelings of the people of Scotland than the scheme in the present Bill. He hoped the Lord Advocate would allow the Bill to be read a second time, for to refer it to a Select Committee would be simply to shelve it. some changes in the direction of the Bill; but did he mean to assert that the ex-Chancellors and others whom he had quoted had recommended the particular proposals of this Bill? He believed that there was sufficient publicity obtained for marriages under the present system; but he was at the same time of opinion that the present discussion would be of some use in drawing attention to irregularities in the proclamation of banns, and to the unevenness in the imposition of fees. The Bill was similar in one respect to the legislation said to have been characteristic of the measures of the late Liberal Government-it bristled with pains and penalties. In more than one clause were penalties of £50 awaiting persons about to marry. He clearly objected to placing the duty proposed in the hands of the Registrar. The proclamation at present was sufficient for the purpose, and he very much doubted whether the proclamation through a Registrar's office would be as effectual. Statements had been made to the effect that because there were many different religious bodies now in Scotland, there was not the same publicity as formerly in proclamation of banns in the parish Church. Would anyone really assert that, at all events, sufficient publicity was obtained, and that was all that could be expected. He was unable to see that there was anything "revolutionary" in the Bill; it would not do to use that word so lightly-they might need it for other and more serious matters-he himself was simply opposed to the machinery of the Bill, and he should therefore vote against the second reading. MR. M'LAREN rose chiefly to make a suggestion—that the Government should allow the Bill to be read a second time, not as approving it, but for the purpose of its being sent to a Select Committee. He had no doubt that any Committee that might be appointed would come to an agreement. If the Lord Advocate did not take up the Bill as a matter of principle he advised him to take it up out of sympathy with his own friends, who had made such strong speeches condemnatory of the present system. If there had been any difference in the condemnation between the two sides of the House, it had been stronger on the Conservative than on the Liberal side of the House, THE LORD ADVOCATE: The question involved in this Bill is one that deals with a matter of very great delicacy. It relates to the law of marriage in Scotland, which differs from that in England especially in this respect, that it undoubtedly affords facilities for irregular marriages. Although I believe there is a general concurrence amongst the people of Scotland in preferring their marriage law to that of England, yet, at the same time, looking at the substantial difference which exists between the law of the three countries-for there is a difference in the law of Ireland and England as well as in the law of Scotland-it becomes a very delicate matter indeed to interfere in anything that enters into the marriage ceremony of any of the countries. Further, it is the interest of Scotchmen not to secularize more than there may be necessity for the marriage ceremony in Scotland. At present, both in England and Ireland, as well as in Scotland, the law provides for proclamation of banns in each country. No doubt it is not essential in England and Ireland that the proclamation should be in the parish church, but it is a matter of some difficulty to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the precise provisions which are there in force as to the mode of proclaiming the intention of marriage, and how far it is afterwards to be power of the State to control the Church completed by a religious ceremony.in this particular, for I can conceive that Assuming, however, that it is the law in England and Ireland-at all events, it was in Ireland before the Irish Church was disestablished-that there should be a proclamation of banns in a church or building licensed for that purpose, is it not important that the House should do nothing by this Bill to shake the rules which prevail in England and Ireland with reference to the proclamation of banns? Yet it will be observed that the effect of the machinery proposed to be established by the present Bill is to set up a new mode of proclamation which does not exist in either of the two other countries. I caution the House against hastily interfering with the Marriage Laws. Although they have been the subject of a Report of the Marriage Commission in 1866, that Report has been laid aside at present-it has been laid aside by successive Governments, who have not yet thought proper to take up the question. It is a very difficult question indeedone of the most difficult which can engage the attention of Government. I have reason to know that it was under the consideration of the present Lord Chancellor to take up the question of the Marriage Laws; but he found that the amount of business required to be transacted in the course of this Session was so great that he was afraid to bring forward any measure. But I think that it is not at all improbable that before long there will be some measure introduced by the Government which will comprehend the whole law connected with marriage, and in particular deal with this matter of proclamation of banns. I therefore think it is of great importance that we should not by any Resolution of this House adopt a principle which may produce a totally different system in Scotland from that which exists at present in England and Ireland, or which might fetter the Legislature hereafter, by adopting the machinery set forth in this Bill. It is said that this question of the notice of marriage is really of a civil character. Reference has been made to the case in the House of Lords; but in that case it was regarded as a Church regulation, and was not looked upon merely as a civil question. What is proposed by this Bill is to lay down a contrary rule on the question. I do not say that it is not in the The Lord Advocate if there is any abuse, the State is quite was glutted with business of all kinds? Were they to be satisfied in the hope that a real practical grievance of that kind would be remedied merely by the declaration that the whole law of marriage was likely to be considered? That statement was equivalent to a denial of justice in the matter. It might be that the machinery proposed by the Bill was not the best; but in justice both to the Dissenters of Scotland and to those who wished to preserve the Estab prudent for the Government to propose a proper remedy for that particular matter. He knew nothing so likely to be injurious to the Church of Scotland or to the whole question of Establishment than the keeping up of an irritating and unjust privilege of this kind. On that account, although he would not pledge himself to the machinery of the Bill, he should vote for the second reading. posted on the church doors-such as Militia notices, Income Tax notices, and so on; and if the names of those intending to marry were simply stuck upon a board at the church door, many persons would fail to see them unless they went for the special purpose. Therefore, I submit that neither the plan suggested by the Free Church nor the plan proposed by the hon. Member would provide sufficient publicity. But I return to the consideration which I venture to think is sufficient to de-lished Church, it would be just and termine the action of the House at the present moment, why should there be laid down for Scotland a new rule entirely different from that which prevails in England and Ireland? That would fetter you when you came to deal with the question of proclamation of banns in other parts of the Kingdom. I have expressed the opinion that the Bill does not provide sufficient machinery for notice being given to all parties, and that the present system is preferable to that which is proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow. But without going into detail, I submit that on the general ground to which I have referred the Bill ought not to pass; and indeed the hon. Member himself did not think that there was any chance for the Bill this Session. There will be no loss, in dealing with the question, by postponing this Bill until we have an opportunity of considering the whole law of marriage, at least in so far as connected with the proclamation of banns in the three countries, as well as in Scotland. I do not dispute that there may be some room for improvement; but then I think in a matter of so delicate a character as that connected with the law of marriage, we ought not to rush into a scheme which evidently has not commended itself to Members on either side of the House. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL thought the Government must feel that some change was absolutely necessary, and he rose to express his disappointment at the declaration of the Lord Advocate, which he must think somewhat feeble. He told them that some day or other the whole law of marriage would be considered. They did not want a radical revolution of the marriage laws in Scotland; and if they did, they would not be likely to get it for a long time, for was it not the case that the House DR. CAMERON, in reply, pointed out that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was in error in supposing that the system proposed by the Bill was something entirely different from what existed in England or Ireland. It was a system perfectly well known in England-where, as his Lordship would see if he referred to Page 8 of the Marriage Laws Commissioners' Report, in all marriages between Dissenters notice was required to be given to the district registrar and a licence obtained from him. In fact, what the Bill proposed was really that the law of Scotland should be assimilated to the law of England on this point. In England the proclamation of banns was made by the officer entrusted with the registration of the subsequent marriage. In England all marriages celebrated in an Established church were registered in a church register of marriages. In Scotland there. were no such registers, and the duty of registering marriages in all cases devolved upon the district registrars. In England whenever it did so, the duty of receiving notices of intention to marry and of issuing licences devolved upon these officials also. This was exactly what the Bill before the House proposed. It had been said that the proposal in the Bill was not that which was proposed in the Report of the Commissioners; but without wearying the House with quotations, he had no hesitation in saying that If Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 141; Noes 166: Majority 25. Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for three months. LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. the Report of the Commissioners com- | the principle of the Bill; and thinking it pletely embraced the proposals of the was not too much to ask the House to Bill. He was not wedded to the mere pronounce an opinion on the subject, he machinery of his Bill. He did not care must press his Motion to a division. whether the notice was put upon the registrar's door or any other accessible place. What he sought was to get rid of a disability which no one justified, and of which everyone complained. It was useless to argue in favour of the present system, for it was doomed. Parliament did not deal with it another body would. An hon. Member had objected that the Bill only touched the fringe of the subject; but this was the only part of the marriage question which was certain to be legislated upon by others if Parliament neglected it. The rest of the Marriage Law could be allowed to stand over; but as regarded this part, unless Parliament interfered the result of the action of the General Assembly would be to impose a new law upon members not only of their own Church, but upon the members of every Dissenting Body in the country. The fact that an ecclesiastical Body should thus be permitted to frame a law for persons outside its own communionto lay down rules, any infraction of which laid the offender open to heavy penalties at this period of the 19th century was such an obvious anachronism and absurdity that it constituted the strongest argument which could be brought forward in favour of the Bill. His hon. Colleague (Mr. Anderson) had said in the course of the debate that there was no necessity for any publicity being given to the intention of marriage. If he would turn to the evidence given before the Marriage Laws Commissioners by the late Roman Catholic Bishop of his own constituency he would see that he was in error; for Bishop Murdoch stated that although during an experience of over 40 years he had never known any instance of the discovery of an impediment to an intended marriage by the calling of banns as at present practised in the Established Church, discoveries had again and again resulted from the simultaneous publication in Roman Catholic churches and chapels, thus at once showing the need for publicity and the uselessness of the present system in securing it. As to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he desired nothing better. All he wished the House to do was to affirm Dr. Cameron MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was similar to that which he brought forward last year; and though on that occasion it was described as extravagant and wild, its principle was simply that of Ulster tenant right as it existed before the passing of the Irish Land Bill in 1870. That principle had been well defined by the late Mr. Conolly when he said, in supporting his father's Bill in 1852, that the custom of tenant right in Ulster implied a power on the part of the tenant, whether on lease or at will, to sell the goodwill of the premises which he occupied to an incoming tenant at the highest price he could obtain in the market, and that he should not be disturbed in his occupation so long as he paid his rent. That was the Ulster tenant right. That was what the late Mr. Sharman Crawford contended for. Moreover, since the passing of the Irish Land Bill many practical grievances and anomalies had arisen in the system, which required a remedy. For instance, on properties where tenant right had existed for generations many complications and misunderstandings arose, and changes had taken place. Farmers having tenant right were not now allowed to sell their right without the consent of the landlord. Last year a farmer died; his widow wished to dispose of the tenant right of the farm, and was offered for it by a respectable and solvent tenant | parts of Ireland the tenants could only £500. The office would not accept the appeal to the Land Act, but in Ulster offered purchaser as tenant, and offered the tenants had the benefit of the Land to take the farm and gave her £170 for it Act, plus the Ulster customs; but, in -£330 less than she could have got from attempting to define these customs, the a solvent tenant. In another case, a hon. Member was proposing to do that tenant's wife died, leaving a family of which the right hon. Member for Greensons and daughters. He made up his wich was obliged to admit was impracmind to leave his farm; a wealthy and ticable, because the customs varied so respectable farmer offered £200 for the much in different places and on different tenant-right. The office refused to per- estates. It was, therefore, futile to enmit the sale. Circumstances, however, deavour to compress a description of compelled the tenant to leave his farm, these customs into seven or eight lines and he left without receiving one penny of an Act of Parliament. The only of the £200. He and his young family point of doubt which it was desirable to had to start life anew pennyless. clear up-the extent to which custom It was unjust to the out-going tenant should operate in the case of a leasethat he could not sell his right without this Bill would not settle; indeed, it the consent of the landlord. He hoped might have been settled satisfactorily by the House would consider the hardship a Bill which had been lately before the which this restriction imposed on the House, but for the opposition of the tenant, and allow the Bill to be read a hon. Member himself and of the secresecond time. taries of the Tenant Right Leagues, Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Sharman Crawford.) MR. GIBSON opposed the Bill, and said the hon. Member had prudently abstained from stating the provisions of his Bill, which, in fact, proposed almost a revolution in the law of the land; and he did not think one or two hard cases, such as those the hon. Gentleman had cited, were sufficient to justify a revolution. The Bill pretended to amend the Land Act of 1870, but it was not an amendment Bill: it was a Bill not to settle, but to unsettle-a Bill not to allay, but to create excitement. The fact of the Bill having been brought forward at so late a period of the Session did not look as if the hon. Member intended it to pass-it was obvious that it was brought in to satisfy the tenantfarmers of Ulster that something was about to be done for them. Ulster was prosperous and contented. The tenant right they were now discussing grew up and was fostered under generous landlords, but until the Act of 1870 it had no legal sanction whatever. According to the present law in Ireland the occupier could get compensation for disturbance and for improvements, and any attempt to change such a satisfactory state of things required much grave consideration. The Ulster tenants were in a better position than those of any other parts of Ireland; for in other VOL. CCXXX. [THIRD SERIES.] whose occupations and salaries it would The hon. Member have put an end to. (Mr. S. Crawford) had kept back all the main provisions of his measure, putting forward two cases of alleged grievances, which, if they existed, this Bill would neither have prevented nor remedied; while he kept out of sight the enactments he proposed, which were so unfairly adverse to landlords-so manifestly unfair that he could not suppose the hon. Member had the slightest wish or intention of carrying them. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving an Amendment that the Bill be read the second time this day three months. MR. CHAPLIN rose to second the Amendment, and was addressing the fore Six of the clock, the Debate stood Then the House having gone through the other Business on the Paper METROPOLIS GAS (SURREY SIDE) BILL. On Motion of Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Bill to amend the Laws regulating the supply of Gas by the Phoenix Gaslight and Coke Company, the London Gaslight Company, and the Surrey Consumers' Gas Company; and to grant further powers to these Companies, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY and Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.] House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. I |