SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL. (Hansard, 26 May 1925)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this is another Bill somewhat connected with the one with which your Lordships have just been dealing. It refers to separation and maintenance orders. This Bill also comes from the other House, and it also passed through your Lordships' House last year. The most important effect of the Bill will be to extend the grounds upon which an order for separation and maintenance may be made. In Clause 1 (1) the Bill enables a court to make an order on the ground of cruelty or neglect by the husband, notwithstanding that his cruelty or neglect has not yet caused her to leave him. As the former Act, the Act of 1895, now stands, a woman who is cruelly treated by her husband cannot apply for an order for separation without first leaving him, with the possible result that she has no means to live upon and cannot apply for an order. This Bill enables her to apply without first leaving her husband's house. When the Bill gets into Committee I shall, I think, have to move an Amendment to prevent her making such an application in cases where she has herself deserted her husband. As the Bill is at present worded there may be some doubt on that point.

Clause 1 (2) adds to the grounds on which an order may be made the case where a husband is guilty of persistent cruelty to the children. That is, we deal not only with the case of cruelty to the wife, but with that of cruelty to the children of the marriage; and as a 526 further ground is added the case where a husband has compelled his wife to submit herself to prostitution. Then there is a new provision in subsection (3) which enables a married man to apply for an order for separation on the ground of his wife's consistent cruelty to his children. That is new. There is a provision in subsection (4) that such an order shall not be enforceable while the spouses are living together. I propose, in Committee, to add a provision similar to that in the previous Bill to the effect that the order shall drop if they continue to live together for upwards of three months.

I need not refer to Clause 2 in detail. It is a complicated clause, and I will wait until the Committee stage, unless some noble Lord desires otherwise, before commenting on that clause. Clause 3 proposes to enact that the expression "habitual drunkard" in certain Acts shall include a person who has the opium habit, or takes other dangerous drugs which produce similar effects. Clause 5 enables a provision as to custody to be enforced by courts of summary jurisdiction. There are other minor provisions, but those are the principal provisions of the Bill. I think that, taken as a whole, the Bill would have the effect, of giving further protection, both to wives who are maltreated, and to wives whose children are maltreated by their fathers, and if that commends itself to your Lordships I hope that you will give the Bill a Second Reading.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, it might be convenient if I were to indicate at this stage that there will be some Amendments which I propose to put down on the Committee stage, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, dealing with the subject of this Bill. I think that many of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that, although there are these numerous minor causes which enable magistrates to grant separation, they are not able to grant it for the very major cause of adultery. That seems to me a curious omission, and one that ought to be remedied. I propose, therefore, to put an Amendment down in that sense. Then there are difficulties which arise when these orders are to be acted upon. There is one difficulty as to the 527 tenancy of the residence in which these people live. It is, of course, not so easy for the poor to move as it is for other people, and it is a little hard sometimes on an innocent wife that, as the result of her obtaining separation, due to the misconduct of her husband, she should be, so to speak, thrown out into the street, particularly in the present condition of housing shortage. I should propose to put down an Amendment to give a certain discretion to the magistrates in that matter, subject to the approval of the landlord.

There is a somewhat similar question as to the division of the furniture of the joint home. It is often very difficult in these cases to say quite definitely that the furniture of a poor home belongs either to the one spouse or to the other. It may have been provided partly out of some money that the wife had when they were married, or perhaps partly out of their earnings, and, if it is possible for magistrates to do it, it may be convenient that there should be some separation of the furniture when there is a separation of the spouses. It would, at any rate, avoid conflict afterwards, and would be more inexpensive than a civil action dealing with the division of the furniture. I know that both these proposals would give to the magistrates a rather paternal and cadi-like jurisdiction, but I hope it may be possible for me, when the time comes, to show that there are reasons for it.