MARRIAGES, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. [SIR EDWARD GROGAN.] [BILL 40.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Form of Notice of Marriage to Registrar, 7 & 8 Vict., c. 81, s. 13). MR. BUTT said, this first clause would have the effect of making the law of Ire land different from that of England. It was a great mistake to suppose that there was at present any very essential difference between the marriage law of Ireland and England. In England there were three modes adopted. In the first place, persons might be married by the clergymen of the Established Church; secondly, they might be married by the registrar in his own office; and thirdly, they could be married in any licensed Dissenting place of worship. The law in Ireland was the same so far as those three modes of performing the marriage ceremony were con cerned. Still there was a difference af fecting Dissenters which ought not to exist. In Ireland, before a marriage was celebrated, notice was given to the registrar, who also gave notice to the board of guardians, in order that the circum stance might be made public. That law had been common to both England and Ireland, but it had been repealed so far as England was concerned, and he did not himself see any objection to its being repealed in Ireland, if securities were given, which would have the effect of preventing clandestine marriages. At a future stage of the Bill he should propose the insertion of clauses which would make the law the same in Ireland as in England. He wished to know from the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Bill, what security it would give against clandestine marriages? It appeared to him that the law ought to be assimilated to that of England, and that the parties ought to be required to verify their statement to the registrar. SIR HUGH CAIRNS thought that it was hardly possible to assimilate exactly the law of England and Ireland on this particular matter. The laws of the two countries had not kept pace with each other, and a system of things had grown up in Ireland which made it impossible to extend exactly the same rule to England as to Ireland. The Presbyterians had the advantage given to them of being able to VOL. CLXX. THIRD SERIES.] marry by their own ministers; but this privilege was not extended to any other denomination of Dissenters from the Established Church. This was a state of things which the Dissenters of Ireland could hardly be content with. Their grievance was admitted, and their demands, urged from year to year, had been as reasonable as could be expected. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had not fully considered the provisions of the Bill. The 22nd clause of the Act of 1844 was embodied in this Bill, and in that manner sufficient security was taken in regard to declarations. In the same way the registration of places of worship was provided for by the incorporation in the Bill of the 27th clause of the same Act. He quite agreed, that if sufficient security were not taken in the Bill on these points, it would be necessary to take it by some additional words. MR. DAWSON said, there was nobody in the North of Ireland more desirous of seeing the marriage law of Ireland put on a clear and intellible footing than the members of the Presbyterian Church. MR. MACDONOGH pointed out that there was a schedule containing a form of declaration, and a clause which fixed a penalty for making a false declaration. The Bill contained sufficient provisions to prevent clandestine marriages, and it had met with the complete approval of the Wesleyans and Independent Congregations of Ireland. MR. LONGFIELD was satisfied that the Bill contained all necessary securities; but he was sure that the promoters of it would willingly accept any Amendment which might be proposed to make this more certain. MR. BUTT said, the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Bill (Sir Edward Grogan) had taken from the English Act the first portion of the declaration which was required to be made before a marriage was celebrated, but had omitted the most solemn part, and the part which persons would consider in conscience equivalent to an oath. If he should be informed by the hon. Baronet, that when they came to the schedule the declaration contained in the English Act would be inserted in the present Bill in its entirety, he should offer no further opposition to the clause. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, it was their desire to relieve Dissenters from the grievances which they laboured under from the passing of the Act of 1844. He pointed T out that there was no provision made in | perfectly well known that the Wesleyans, the clause with reference to persons resid- for instance, had ordinations, and it was ing in England and Scotland. well understood what an "ordained minister" meant. SIR HUGH CAIRNS believed that his hon. Friend had adopted a mode of publicity that would be satisfactory to the public. MR. WHITESIDE inquired whether the Bill was intended to apply to marriages of members of the Established Church duly solemnized in Church. If so, he should object to it, for the members of that Church were quite content with the security which they enjoyed under the existing law. SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, the Bill did not extend to members of the Established Church. If there was any doubt upon the point, he was willing to insert any Amendment that would have the effect of making the point perfectly clear. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Place, Time, &c. of Marriage). 64 MR. MACDONOGH suggested that the words "officiating minister" should be substituted for the words ordained minister.” SIR EDWARD GROGAN admitted the force of the objection to the word "ordained," but said the word "ordained” had been used at the request of the Dissenting bodies to whom the Bill was to apply, as there were two classes of clergymen belonging to these denominations. MR. BUTT was sorry that the hon. Baronet had consented to adapt the clause so as to meet the differences between the different Dissenting bodies. After a short discussion, words" an ordained" struck out of the clause. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the clause introduced a serious alteration in the canonical hours set apart for marriage. It provided that marriages should only take place between the hours of eight and twelve instead of eight and two. SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, the alteration introduced into the Bill was for the express purpose of bringing it back to the canonical hours, which were eight to twelve. MR. BUTT thought the right hon. Baronet had fallen into the mistake in consequence of the Act of 1844 having fixed the hours between eight and twelve. SIR ROBERT PEEL: The Rubric says eight and two. SIR EDWARD GROGAN: No, the Rubric says eight and twelve. MR. BUTT said, the clause was the most important in the whole Bill, inasmuch as it made a distinction between the English law and that which would become the law in Ireland if the Bill passed. At present in the Dissenting chapels the ceremony of marriage must be performed in the presence of the registrar. That was considered a grievance, and therefore it was proposed to dispense with the presence of the registrar; but it was necessary that there should be a security that the marriage was properly solemnized. The clause enacted that the ceremony should be performed by the ordained minister" of the Dissenting body to which the parties belonged; but who was to determine that the minister present was a properly "ordained minister" of that particular body? Who was to show that he was ordained at all? He feared, that if this provision were retained, questions would be raised as to the validity of marriages founded on the validity of the ordination of the person who had officiated? In the whole history of our legislation there was no instance of a clause having been inserted in a Bill establishing the validity of the ordination of in Dissenting ministers. He moved that the words an ordained" be struck out of the clause. SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he did not object to the Amendment, but said the question was not as to what the Church of England considered ordination. It was Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7 (Marriage under this Act good and cognizable). Proviso added, "The presence of the Registrar shall not be necessary at any marriage celebrated under the provisions of this Act, in any house of worship registered or certified under the said recited Act."" Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Entry of Marriage by Minister Amendment, "And such minister shall, in April, July, October, and January every year send to the Registrar General, on a printed form (supplied to him by the Registrar General), a copy, certified by him under his hand, of all entries in the duplicate marriage register books in his keeping, made in the quarter of a year then last past, or certify under his hand that no such entry has been made | clause which would impose a penalty not in such quarter, if the case so be;"—(Sir Edward Grogan ;) -agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday next. [Bill 88.] House adjourned at half after Five o'clock. www HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, April 23, 1863. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Report-Alkali Works Regulation (No. 77). ALKALI WORKS REGULATON BILL. (No. 55.) COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order). Clause 2 (Commencement of Act)--Act not to come into operation until the 1st January 1864. THE EARL OF DERBY said, he did not see why the Act should not come into operation before. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said. the apparatus that would be required would take some time to erect; but he had no objection to alter the clause so as to enact that the Act should come into operation on the 1st January 1864. to. Clause, amended, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Conduct of Alkali Works). LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY proposed to substitute for the present clause (which imposed a penalty not exceeding £50 in respect of the first offence, and for the second offence a penalty not exceeding £20, or not less than £2 for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section) a new exceeding £50, and in respect of a continuing offence, after notice, a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5 for every day. THE EARL OF DERBY proposed that in the case of a second or any subsequent offence the penalty should be increased to not less than £50 and not more than £100. He would leave the Board of Trade to define what a 66 continuing offence" should be held to be. LORD CRANWORTH said, that until a court of law had decided that the owner of the work had committed a violation of the law, it would be rather hard to double the penalty. LORD CHELMSFORD said, that every alkali work was to be carried on to the satisfaction of the Inspector. Not to do so was in itself an offence under the Act, and he did not therefore see the hardship of increasing the penalty. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, he would consider the suggestion proposed by the noble Earl. Amendment agreed to. Clause struck out, and new Clause inserted. Clause 5 (Registration of Alkali Works) agreed to. Clause 6 (Appointment of Inspectors). LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY proposed to add a proviso enabling the Board of Trade, on the application of an Inspector, to appoint and remove sub-Inspectors. Motion agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Recovery of General Penalties). THE EARL OF DERBY desired to call the attention of the House to a feature in the Bill which, unless it was altered, would render it inoperative. The difficulty which had always arisen in cases of nuisance, and which rendered the Bills to remedy them inoperative, was the power which was given to the party charged with occasioning the nuisance to appeal to the superior courts; for it was frequently well worth while for a wealthy manufacturer convicted of occasioning a nuisance to appeal to the superior courts, knowing full well that the informer was not likely to incur the expense of such a proceeding. The Committee on this subject recommended strongly that there should be no such appeal from the Court of Quarter Sessions, and it appeared to him that the questions to be determined upon the evidence of the Inspector were so simple that he could not see any necessity for giving an appeal except when some point of law should arise. He therefore proposed to omit that part of the clause giving the appeal, and to insert the words"And no appeal may be had from such orders to any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts, except in cases in which the Court shall certify that some question of law is involved which renders expedient such appeal." He felt so strongly, as did the Committee on the subject, that he should feel it his duty, if necessary, to divide the House upon the subject. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, their Lordships must remember, that while the expenses of an appeal were very moderate, the consequences to the manufacturer of a conviction would be very serious, as numerous actions for damages would, of course, follow, and be sustained, as a matter of course, by the fact of the previous conviction. An additional reason in favour of allowing an appeal was that the tribunal of primary jurisdiction decided without a jury. LORD CRANWORTH said, that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the provision contained in the Bill was that the appeal should be had in the same way in which appeals could be had under the existing law, and such appeals were now allowed only where there was a question of law, and not upon a matter of fact. There was, in fact, no appeal in the proper sense of the word; but the proceedings being removed by certiorari, the superior court would take notice of any errors which appeared on the face of them. LORD CHELMSFORD said, his noble he would observe that this clause distinctly and learned Friend was quite right; but gave an appeal, which must mean some thing more than that which now existed by means of certiorari. He suggested that the clause be struck out altogether, and the law left as it now stood. After a few observations from LORD WENSLEYDALE, the words giving the appeal were struck out. Clause, as amended, agreed to. The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 77.) OFFICE OF SECRETARY AT WAR ABOLITION BILL-(No. 71.) SECOND READING. EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to bring the law into conformity with the existing practice, according to which the offices of Secretary at War and Secretary of State for War were now held by the same person, and to provide for the discharge of the duties of the former office by the Secretary of State. There would be a convenience in making this alteration of the law, because the commission of the Secretary at War, which had to be held by the Secretary of State for War, ran as to an inferior officer, and directed him to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in certain matters, an obedience which it was not the duty of a Secretary of State to render. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. that as this Bill made no practical alteraTHE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH said, tion in the powers now exercised by the Secretary of State, it would be better to let matters remain as they were, and to leave to the Crown the power which it now possessed of separating these two offices. Ile did not think that an experience of ten years was sufficient to justify Parliament in giving its sanction to their union. Indeed, inconvenience might arise from such a sanction, because it might become desirable to separate the offices at a time when Parliaobjected to the union of these two offices, ment was not sitting. He had always which appeared to him to be incompatible with each other. The duty of the Secreliament were duly applied, and that no tary at War was to check the issue of money, and see that the Votes of Parlarger sums were issued than were actually voted; while that of the Secretary of State was to direct the expenditure and the issue of money. These two functions and ought not to be discharged by the were, in his opinion quite incompatible, same individual. In 1836 the Duke of Wellington thought that the business of the Secretary at War was as much as could be done in one office. Since that time the duty had materially increased; and if they amalgamated the two offices, he thought it might be that the Secretary of State alone would not be equal to the SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSELS BY QUESTION. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said, that before their Lordships adjourned, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two or three Questions, of which he had given him notice, upon a matter of the greatest importance— namely, the proceedings of naval officers of the Northern States of America with respect to British ships in the West Indian and Mexican waters, which was apparently sanctioned by their Government. He was well aware of the gravity of this subject; but he thought the circumstances which had taken place were so gross, and were so notorious, and of a character so deeply affecting some of the best interests, as well as the honour of this country, that he did not think any further time should be allowed to elapse before it was made proper performance of all the duties. Nothing could be more prejudicial to the public service than to heap upon one individual a vast amount of business, to the whole of which he could not possibly attend. So many duties were now cast upon the Secretary of State for War that he could not be really responsible for what was done in his office. He hoped the noble Earl opposite, whose acceptance of the office of Secretary of State had been received with great satisfaction, would apply himself to the re-consideration of that concentration of power in the War Department, which, in a hurried manner, in the midst of the Crimean war, Parliament had imagined itself forced to adopt. It would, indeed, be contrary to ordinary experience if a great change, carried out in great haste, should turn out the perfection of human wisdom. In the present instance, he be lieved the case to be directly the reverse, and he trusted, therefore, the noble Earl would illustrate his tenure of office by im-known to the world that Parliament could proving, as far as he could, the general scheme for the administration of the army. EARL RUSSELL said, that the Bill before their Lordships would increase the power of the Secretary for War in a very slight degree. He thought that considerable advantage had resulted from the alterations that had been made, and what was proposed in this Bill would be so far an improvement. THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH said, that there were eight or ten great Departments under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, and he thought that it was quite impossible for any one functionary to discharge satisfactorily the duties appertaining to all of them. The not hear of these transactions without EARL GREY said, that if voting for this Bill was to be understood as an approval of the existing organization of the War Department, he should object to give such vote, for he believed that organiza-ders to touch at Madeira and St. Thomas. tion to be vicious in principle and inconvenient in practice, and that the military affairs of the country would never be satisfactorily administered until the system was improved. That, however, was a question which was not, in any way, affected by the Bill under discussion. The office of Secretary at War, however, had been, it appeared, virtually abolished, and therefore it was not desirable to keep it up in name. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow. As she was coming out of St. Thomas, she was visited and scized by an American cruiser, and carried away as prize, her crew being detained upon the ship of war which seized her. If the accounts received were correct, there was something very striking in the details of the way in which the commander of the ship of war behaved. While some of the crew were sent to Key West, or some other port, with the vessel, to be dealt with by a prize court, the Englishmen were detained on board the American ship of war, and she did not stir to put them on shore either at an English |