right rev. Bench. [Cries of "Oh!"! The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) complained that during the debate of last week, he (the Earl of Dalhousie), as having charge of the Bill, had made no reply to the speeches made against it. Well, he was an old enough Member of their Lordship's House to know that, when the clock pointed to half-past 7, it would task the powers of a greater orator than himself to interest their Lordships. He was not sure that the right rev. Prelate had not been visited by a similar feeling, for the speech they had just heard had evidently been intended for the second reading of the Bill, and not composed for the purposes of Committee. The Bill was a fair and honest Public Bill, so far as it went, and he knew all that related to agree to this relaxation of the law was converted into a minority by the unanimous vote of the Bishops. The more he (Lord Brabourne) wished the Church to become a mighty engine for the improvement of the moral and religious condition of the people, the more he desired to see her influence extended among the masses, the more earnestly did he deprecate the state of things in which a civil disability could be pointed out as the result of her teaching and influence, and that, too, a disability which was inflicted as a punishment for an act which was approved and sanctioned by one-half of the Christian world, and by every other Protestant country. Nor must it be forgotten that this was not the case of the Church punishing her own contumacious children for disobedience to her com-it. The measure, however, which it would mands. In this free country, men had a right to choose their own religion; and this breach of Church discipline was punished upon hundreds and thousands of people who were not amenable to the discipline nor subject to the control of the Church. He (Lord Brabourne) had presented a Petition signed by 7,422 Nonconformist ministers, declaring their belief that the measure ought to be passed. A meeting of 44 Baptist Churches had expressed the same view very strongly. It was due from their Lordships, the majority of whom belonged to the Church, that they should be most charitable to those who did not. He had no particular love for these marriages himself; but when the great majority of Christian nations-he believed every other Protestant nation -sanctioned these marriages, it was a little too bad that in England the boasted home of civil and religious liberty-we should continue to enforce a heavy penalty upon those who contracted them. He hoped, therefore, the House would not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, and, if it were rejected, that it would be possible to amend the clause in accordance with some of the suggestions of the Lord Chancellor. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he had listened with the greatest respect to the speeches which had been made in various parts of the House. There was, however, one speech which he heard with the greatest pain, so different it was in tone and feeling from everything he had ever heard before come from the Lord Brabourne in part undo was, in reality, first introduced as a Private Bill under the guise of a public one-he referred to the Act of Lord Lyndhurst. He had listened to with great attention, and fully accepted, the criticisms of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack; at the same time, he would ask the House to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp). With regard to the question of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, whether he intended to bring forward Bills dealing with all the other degrees of affinity, and, in fact, to take up the whole question of the Law of Marriage, and deal with it on a logical principle, he had to reply that he had no such ambition or intention. The Bill simply was intended to remove a present grievance, with as little disturbance as possible to the existing Marriage Law. But he asked them to reject the Amendment on this ground. He considered that, by the vote of last week, the House practically declared that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, so far as it related to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, was a mistake, and that the hardship and suffering it had caused were unnecessary; and, that being so, that Act had committed a most grievous wrong, and though the whole of that wrong could not be undone, it was desirable that they should undo as much as possible. He therefore thought the retrospective operation of the measure should be preserved. Those who had inherited property, honours, or titles, or formed expectations which might be re garded as in the nature of vested rights, | the House might then reasonably avoid would in no way be touched by the mea- a division. sure. It would, however, be an unnecessary and a wickedly cruel hardship, so far as children were concerned, not to make this Bill retrospective in regard to their legitimacy. That retrospective principle he considered, though not absoÎutely essential, yet as a very important part of the Bill; and though he certainly would not drop the Bill, if the noble Earl's (Earl Beauchamp's) Amendment was carried, he would, nevertheless, ask the House to reject that Amendment. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he thought the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) was not so clear for the guidance of the House as their Lordships could wish on so important an issue as this. It was desirable, if it could be avoided, not to come to a division, as it might further excite animosities, which all would deplore in reference to a measure of this kind; and if it were possible to avoid a division, without losing the main objects which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) and his noble Friends had in view, of course they would be glad to refrain from dividing the Honse. He understood that their Lordships were quite agreed that the children ought not to suffer any damage in honour or in property in consequence of the illegal marriage of their parents; but he also understood that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill accepted the criticisms of the noble and leaned Earl on the Woolsack, in which case the noble Earl must have assented to the great evil of Parliament formally consecrating a defiance of its own decrees. The noble Earl had, therefore, left the House in considerable doubt as to the real course he meant to adopt whether the words in the clause were to stand or not, or whether the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl would be accepted. If the noble Earl insisted permanently upon the retention of these words as they stood in the Bill, of course the supporters of the Amendment would have no option but to record their views on the subject; but if he would promise to take the words into consideration, with a view, on the one hand, of meeting the criticisms of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and, on the other, of protecting the honour, property, and rights of the children who were issue of these marriages, THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he was greatly obliged to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), who had expressed so much better than he (the Earl of Dalhousie) had done himself the course he intended to adopt. He thought he had said he accepted the Amendment, as well as the criticisms of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. It was sufficient for his purpose if, after the passing of the Act, children of marriages of a deceased wife's sister which had already been contracted were declared legitimate. He would undertake to bring up, at the next stage of the Bill, words which would meet that Amendment; but he must still ask the House to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp). EARL BEAUCHAMP said, that, under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, but upon the understanding that the words of the Amendment, which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) was subsequently to bring up, would cover the objections which he (Earl Beauchamp) entertained to the clause; if they did not he should exercise his right to urge his objection at a future stage of the Bill. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON said, he should like to have it more distinctly from the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) whether he was prepared to accept the compromise suggested by the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor)? If they got an assurance from the noble Earl that he would give effect to the criticisms of the noble and learned Earl, then it might be possible to avoid a division. Otherwise, he should be very much inclined to ask their Lordships to divide on the Amendment. EARL GRANVILLE said, he thought the matter was clearly understood; though, if they went to a division, the Amendment would most probably be rejected. In his opinion, his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had fully met the views of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor). THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he thought that the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Dalhousie) had said all that he could be reasonably expected to say at the present stage of the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) had indicated the principle in the Bill, as now framed, which he thought politically dangerous, and the direction which he desired to see followed in order to remedy it. If the Amendments which the noble Earl would propose at a subsequent stage were disapproved by noble Lords opposite, they would not be bound to accept them on account of what had now taken place. EARL BEAUCHAMP said, he did not want to go to a division if it could be avoided; therefore, he would withdraw his Amendment, reserving his right to move it upon the Report, or on the third reading of the Bill. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. of Scotland was superior to that of England in several particulars. For example, he approved the doctrine of legi. timatio per subsequens matrimonium. He, however, thought the Bill ought to be extended to Scotland, as it was inexpedient to increase the existing dif ferences in the Law of Marriage as between the two countries, so closely united as they were in all other matters. He could not conceive that the House of Commons would accept a Bill of this kind which excluded Scotland altogether. THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN said, he wished to point out that the Bill, as applying to England, only referred to civil marriages; but that, if passed as it stood, it would affect all marriages in Scotland, civil and religious. LORD BALFOUR said, he ventured On Question?" That Clause 1 stand to think it would be absolutely necespart of the Bill." THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH asked whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) intended still to retain in the clause the mention of Scotland, seeing that Lord Lyndhurst's Act did not apply to Scotland? THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN said, he should also like to know whether the Bill would refer to Scotland? THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that the Amendment which had stood in his name would have left out Scotland altogether. sary to leave the words as they stood in the Bill; at any rate, to include Scotland within the scope of the Bill. As he understood it, the reason of the difference in the wording with reference to England and Scotland was owing to a difference in Ecclesiastical Law. But if these marriages were to be legalized at all, which he certainly would deeply regret, it seemed to him a somewhat exence between the law of England and traordinary proposal to make a differScotland on the point. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD said, that with reference to some criticisms which had been made on his speech by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie), he wished to disclaim any intention of dis THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH said, that if Lord Lyndhurst's Act, against which this Bill was directed, were referred to, it would be found that Scot-cussing the question in a spirit of bitterland was expressly excluded from it. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, he wished to know whether the noble Duke opposite desired that Scotland should be excluded altogether from the Bill, so that in Scotland it should not be legal, and in England it should be legal, to marry a deceased wife's sister? That would be a very unsatisfactory state of the law. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH said, that he wished to leave the ancient law of Scotland as it was at present. EARL GRANVILLE: Does the noble Duke move any Amendment? THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that there were already serious differences between the Marriage Laws of England and Scotland. In his opinion, the law The Lord Chancellor ness, when he used the word "honest." He had employed that term in a strictly Parliamentary sense-that was, when a person did not give an answer to a question fairly put, he did not think that was honest. Bitterness was far from his feeling. Question put, and agreed to. Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 (Excepted cases); and Clause 3 (Provision for saving rights), agreed to, without amendment, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in rising to move the following new Clause:— "No proceeding, ecclesiastical or civil, against any clerk in holy orders, after the passing of this Act, shall be affected by anything in this Act contained," said, he had not taken up this Bill with any intention of attacking the Church, neither had he any intention of allowing it to be made a weapon in the hands of others for that purpose. The object of the clause was to prevent interference from the outside with the discipline of the Church, and to maintain the law regulating legal proceedings against ministers of religion in its present form. There were many clergymen, no doubt, who would object to celebrate these marriages; but there were many also who would not object. A movement had been set on foot, having for its object the organization of an association of clergymen who should have no objection to marry persons wishing to contract such marriages, or to allow them to receive the Holy Communion. He hoped in that way parties contracting these marriages would not be obliged to risk a refusal by addressing themselves to clergymen who might be unwilling to perform the ceremony. Any action against a clergyman maintainable now would be maintainable after the passing of the Act. Amendment moved, After Clause 3, to insert as a new Clause:"No proceeding, ecclesiastical or civil, against any clerk in holy orders, after the passsing of this Act, shall be affected by anything in this Act contained."-(The Earl of Dalhousie.) EARL CAIRNS said, he fully agreed with the object of the clause, and would suggest that the object of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) would be better carried out if the clause were made to run as follows: "No proceeding, ecclesiastical, criminal, or civil, against any clerk in holy orders, after the passing of this Act, for or in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by such clerk or other minister of religion in the performance THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to further amend the clause, by inserting, after "clerk in holy orders," the words to protect ministers of the Church of For other minister of religion," so as Scotland in the same way. ment of the noble Marquess (the MarLORD BALFOUR said, the Amendquess of Lothian) was entirely unnecessary as regarded Scotland; because he ministers of the Church there might take (Lord Balfour) did not think any action in such a matter could be brought under the view of the Civil Courts of Scotland. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that, as the Amendment would do no harm, he was perfectly willing to accept it. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) made his (the Earl of Dalhousie's) own Amendment more clear, he should also gladly accept it. Amendment (The Marquess of Lothian) agreed to. Amendment (Earl Cairns) agreed to. New Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. On the Motion of The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, the following was inserted. as a new Clause, after the one just added: "Provided also that nothing in this Act shall remove wives' sisters from the number of those persons adultery with whom constitutes a right the Divorce Act of 1857." on the part of wives to sue for divorce, under Clause 4 (Short title) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. House resumed. Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 112.) of the duties of his office, shall be affected by PUBLIC HEALTH (DAIRIES, &c.) BILL. any change in the law in this Act contained." He thought the alteration as proposed would bring out more clearly the noble Earl's meaning. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the meaning was clearly the same in both cases. LORD DENMAN said, that he could have no possible objection to Clause 3, because it would leave the law exactly as it was at present. (The Lord President.) (NO. 92.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to deal with the regulation and direction of dairies and cowsheds on farms under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1868, and to provide proper and better machinery for the purpose. The provisions of the section of that Act had virtually become a dead letter; and, therefore, the Bill under notice made a change in the administration of this law by transferring, from the Privy Council to the Local Government Board, the power of making orders for the inspection, licensing, and direction of dairies. Their direction and regulation would thus be placed in the hands of the sanitary authorities for the district, instead of the local authorities constituted under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. He would move the second reading of the Bill. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2" -(The Lord President.) pro would all take the same view of their duty in enforcing the Act; and the consequence would be, that they would have, in one parish, a totally different rule obtaining from that which obtained in the parish next to it; and not only would that cause very general dissatisfaction, but it would cause a very large increase in expense in the working of the Act. In addition to that, no one who knew the constitution of parochial boards in Scotland would think for a moment that they were as satisfactory an authority for this purpose as the county committee, which was now the authority. He had himself been for 15 years a chairman of a parochial board, and therefore he did not wish to say anything against parochial boards as regarded the particular purposes for which they were constituted. Their particular duty was to look after the relief of the poor, and the local sanitary necessities of the parish; and he thought they were totally unfitted, by their constitution and the small area over which they had authority, for having any discretion conferred upon them in a matter of this kind. As to England, he knew nothing of how the Act worked there; but he hoped that the point he raised as to Scotland would be carefully considered before the Bill got into Committee, and that, at any rate, sufficient time would be given to the local authorities in Scotland to express their opinion upon it. That they had not yet been able to do, in consequence of the short interval since the Bill was printed. LORD BALFOUR said, he should very much like to know at whose request these changes were to be made; because he ventured to think that not only would they serve no useful purpose, but they would be exceedingly unpopular, and would, perhaps, have the effect of rendering the Act a dead letter in Scotland. The present law had been in operation for four years in Scotland, and had been worked with general approval, and with a great amount of success. By the sent Bill, the authority in Scotland for putting it in force would be taken from the county committee and placed in the hands of the parochial boards, which were sanitary authorities under the Public Health Act of 1867. He had been a member of the county committee in two counties, both of which had worked the Act for four years; and they had done it with very little friction, and he believed with very general practical good. In the county of Stirling, for instance, which was one of those to which he had referred, very soon after the Order of the Privy Council came out in 1879, it was put in force, and no less than 1,100 persons were shortly after registered as keepers of dairies and other places for THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND the sale of milk. The Act had been GORDON said, that while he thought worked in that county at, he believed, the inspectors of nuisances and the an annual expenditure of £10 or £15, officers of the Local Government Board or, perhaps, at the outside, £20. But, did their duty, he believed that the Bill, if this Bill passed as it now stood, for the as regarded England, proposed a very one authority there would be substituted good change, and he thought it would no fewer than 27 different authorities, be found to be very useful. There was, there being no less than 27 parishes in however, a great deal in what his noble the county of Stirling. It was most un-Friend (Lord Balfour) had said with likely that those 27 different authorities regard to Scotland. He (the Duke of Lord Carlingford LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY objected to the application of the Bill to England, since the sanitary officers or nuisance inspectors were very frequently townsmen who were not too well acquainted with the requirements of farmers and of rural life. This Bill would, in all probability, cause a great increase in the rates, or would be used as an excuse for increased salaries. |