HC Deb 04 March 1925 vol 181 cc532-49
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr, Godfrey Locker-Lampson)

I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time. Last Friday, I am sorry to say, I was engaged in a very controversial Bill, and I am only too glad to think that this Bill is, I believe, an absolutely uncontroversial Measure. It is the complement of the Separation and Maintenance Bill, to which this House so readily gave a Second Reading a few days ago. It is in the nature of a compromise, which is sometimes regarded, perhaps, as the chief recommendation of a Bill. The House will remember there have been several Bills on this subject. There was Lord Askwith's Bill, and there was Mrs. Wintringham's Bill, and both Governments of the day—I think a Conservative Government in the case of Lord Askwith's Bill, and the late Labour Government in the case of Mrs. Wingtringham's Bill—felt they could not adopt those Bills in their entirety, because they went further than general public opinion would accept at that moment. There are four reasons why those Governments could not accept those Bills. In the first place, they did not sufficiently emphasise the vital interests of the children. In the second place, both Bills tended to encourage too frequent appeals to the Court in merely trivial disputes. In the third place, orders against the husband were made enforceable while the wife was still resident with the husband; and, in the fourth place, there was a very controversial clause dealing with the attachment of wages.

Conferences were held between representatives of the late Government and the promoters of the Bill and others interested in the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor-General was Chairman of the Committee, associated with my hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and an agreement was reached between all parties. The House will remember the late Labour Government introduced a Bill last year, and that it passed one House of Parliament, and would rapidly have passed into law, had it not been that the Dissolution of Parliament took place. The next stage in the history of this subject was that it was mentioned in the King's Speech the other day. This Bill is really the fulfilment of the promise made in the King's Speech, and is practically identical with the Bill introduced by the late Labour Government.

There are only two very unimportant additions to that Bill, one dealing with the date of the operation of the Bill, and also a very small addition dealing with machinery. This Bill, I believe, is a, considerable step in advance towards the equalisation of the law as between men and women. If I may, I will briefly summarise the chief Clauses of the Bill. Clause provides for absolute equality as between the father and mother in any case that may come before the Courts under the existing law touching the custody or upbringing of the infant, or the administration of property belonging to the infant. In all such cases—and this is a most important point—the Court is to regard the welfare of the infant as the paramount and first consideration, and it is not to take into consideration a claim for superiority of the mother over the father, or of the father over the mother. The Clause does not attempt to enlarge the scope of possible litigation, and matters for which a judicial decision may be sought remain as at the present moment. Clause 2 confers on the mother the same rights of applying to the court in matters affecting the infant as are possessed now by the father. Clause 3 enables a wife to obtain an order for custody and maintenance while she is still resident with the husband, but, as I mentioned just now, a very important point is that the order is not to be enforceable while she resides voluntarily with the father.

Clauses 4 and 5 give the mother the same power now possessed by the father to appoint by deed or will a guardian after death. Clause 7 provides that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction shall be added to the High Court and the County Court for dealing with certain types of application. I do not think I need deal with the remaining Clauses, which mainly relate to machinery. I quite realise that this Bill does not go as far as some people, especially outside this House, might like it to go. I do not know whether that applies to many in this Chamber. On the other hand, this Bill, I believe, goes a good deal further than a good many people outside the House would wish to see. It does not, therefore, wholly satisfy either side, but I am not at all sure that is not really one of its chief recommendations. But, remembering the long controversy that has taken place over the earlier Bills, and the compromise effected by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member in the late Government, I do hope that all parties will do their best to secure the passage of this Measure, which was very nearly passed into law a few months ago.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I have ventured to intervene in this Debate, because this Bill is partly—if I may say so without conceit—my own production. It is not the first time I have had the pleasure to follow my hon. Friend in agreeing with him on these various Bills for the emancipation of women, and I do not think I should be unfair if I emphasised the fact that this Guardianship of Infants Bill, like the Bill dealing with separation, is the product, in its entirety, of the Labour Government, and, as the hon. Member has said, it is the result of a compromise. I was appointed to the very delicate and difficult position of chairman of the committee, on which, I think, practically all the interests of the women's societies concerned in this matter, and the representatives of the Home Office and other Departments, were present. This Bill was unanimously agreed to by that committee as a practical solution of the immediate difficulties with regard to the guardianship of infants. In the Bill which was introduced by Mrs. Wintringham there were provisions which really were quite unenforceable. For instance, it was said in that Bill that the control of an infant would have to be a joint control of both parents, and it occurred to some of us at once that considerable. difficulties would arise if the father, for example, ordered Tommy to go to bed, and the mother was not present at the time, and pleaded a demurrer, that the order was several and not joint.

Other difficulties of that sort might arise. There was the suggestion, for example that either parent, on the slightest dispute about the behaviour of the child from time to time, might immediately have recourse to the magistrate. Now magistrates are hard-worked people, and always ready to do everything that is necessary in the social service, but I believe that if some dispute as to what an infant had for dinner, or some minor dispute of that sort, were to arise in a family it would not be expedient that such a matter should be decided by the magistrate. When you come to really serious matters, they are provided for in this Bill. Trivial matters, which I do not think anyone would want to see interfered with by a Court, are not dealt with in the Bill, but anything approaching a serious domestic problem with regard to the child is so dealt with. It is provided in the first Clause that Where in any proceeding before any Court (whether or not a Court within the meaning of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886) the custody or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property belonging to or held on trust for an. infant, or the application of the income thereof, is in question,"— that covers every case which can in any way seriously affect the welfare of the child— the Court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration, and shall not take into consideration whether from any other point of view the claim of the father, or any right at common law possessed by the father, in respect of such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father. Therefore, I think in this Clause we have, found the right compromise in saying that in all matters of importance that shall come before the Court, the mother and father shall be on an equal footing, and we have excluded the possibility of frivolous applications to Courts of Law, when there is some little domestic tiff. I think, considering the difficulties of the problem, this Clause is a very useful and an admirable way out of what was a very considerable difficulty. In addition to that, we have made the very important provision, that the wife can obtain an order with regard to the custody and maintenance of an infant while she is still residing with the father. That is the same principle which was introduced in the Bill last week dealing with separation. Then the Bill provides that that order shall not be operative until the mother ceases to reside with the father. There, again, you have it stated, for the first time in English law, that the mother may know what her rights will be with regard to her children before she actually takes the step of leaving her husband.

I do not deny that this is a very serious and important innovation. I am prepared to defend it. My right hon. Friend opposite is also prepared to defend it. But, I think that the House ought to realise that we are here specifically giving to married women a right which they have never possessed before—and a very valuable one! I do not want anyone to think that this Bill is a compromise which really deprives married women of any essential right. This is a new and novel thing. Married women here are regarded as having new rights which they have never possessed either by common law, or by the earlier Guardianship of Infants Act, or any other Statute before the present time. In Clause 5 we have the power of the father and mother to appoint testamentary guardians, and in future both parents are to be on equal terms. Then there is the provision in case of dispute, which says that the surviving parent or guardian may apply that the matter be taken to Court. The next provision which is, I think, important, is that we have provided for the first time that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall be able to exercise a jurisdiction in this class of case. We have excluded from its purview children of 16, or the administration or application of any property held in trust for an infant, and cases of maintenance of any infant exceeding 20s. a week; but it was impressed upon us—and my hon. Friend has taken the same view in this Bill—that in many cases it was desirable that the cheapest and most available jurisdiction, that is a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, should be available to deal with these cases.

Finally, there is another matter which deals with the consents required for the marriage of infants. These, so far, have been in a very chaotic condition, and are to be found in various Measures. So far as Clause 9 is concerned, it is really a codification very largely, and simplification, so that any person who proposes to marry an infant will be able, from the simple form in the Schedule of this Act, to look up their rights and see exactly what consents are necessary for the marriage. Therefore, I wish to join in this matter with my hon. Friend in asking the House to allow this Bill to pass into law. It has already received three Readings in another place, and would, in the ordinary course of events, have been introduced by another Government not less anxious than our own, that the work should continue. I hope that this Bill will be regarded by everybody as a reasonable compromise between the old idea with regard to the father as being head of the household, and the new idea. This Bill, I say, is a reasonable compromise dealing with actual practical difficulties, and we ask that this House should give it a Second Reading.

Mr. GERALD HURST

The real justification for this Bill seems to me to lie in the Preamble, which deals not with first principles. It must depend on the issue whether or not it is really designed to work in those relatively few cases where the, difference-between husband and wife, both of whom have behaved themselves properly, is so acute that. agreement is impossible without going to Court. Although the Bill does not give a solution of these difficulties, in view of the very great experience and judgment which are possessed by the Judges who have to administer the Act, questions in regard to the career of the child, its education and residence, may well he left to their absolute discretion. I dare say it is quite wise that that discretion is not limited in express terms in the Bill. Though it may not be desirable to limit the discretion of the Judges, I should like to paint to two cases where possibly some indication may he given to the Judges by which their discretion should he guided. First of all, where you have joint guardians as a surviving parent and a testamentary guardian, it does seem to be a case where the wishes of the surviving parent should commonly prevail, and the wishes of the two guardians should not. be taken as of identical value. Where the question at issue involves expenditure, it seems to me. that the father should have a dominant voice in deciding what should be done with the child. It may not be necessary, perhaps, to indicate that in the Bill, because, no doubt, these facts will weigh with the Judges who have to administer the Bill. The real object, however, of my rising this evening is to draw attention to a point which, in my experience, is much the most important in this question of guardianship of infants. It is not referred to at all in the Bill as drafted. It will be the experience, I think, of everybody who has practised in this type of case that in nine cases out of 10 an application made to the Court in a difference between husband and wife arises out of their difference of religion. It is a most difficult problem where you have two parents, both of whom are conducting themselves properly, while they differ in their religious views, whose children are very young and have not yet been able to form a judgment for themselves.

First of all, let me point out that at the present that system is absolutely bad, and that the new system does not provide a remedy for the present abuse. I say the present system is absolutely bad, because the father's rule at the present time is absolutely paramount. Even if the spouses have entered into a contract, before marriage that the children should be brought up in one particular faith, that contract is not a contract, enforceable in a Court of Law, for the father's wishes arc paramount, and the contract can be broken. Apart from that, the present law is that if the father and mother have accepted the same religious faith on marriage, and the father subsequently is converted to another faith, his view carries the children with it. This is so even if the common idea of both parents at the time of marriage was that the children should be brought up in the belief that the parents both had. What interested me first in this problem was a case in the Courts which seemed to me to involve tremendous injustice on the wife. Both husband and wife in this particular case were Anglicans at the time of marriage. Some years afterwards, after three or four children had been born, and were under the age, I should think, of nine, the husband became a Roman Catholic and all the children were accordingly brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. That seemed to me to be a hardship on the wife, because there was undoubtedly implied an understanding at the time of the marriage that the children should he brought up in the Anglican faith in which both father and mother then believed. While allowing, therefore, that the present system is bad we have to ask whether the new system is going to provide a solution. In my contention it does not do so at all. The Judge has to decide which is for the greater welfare of the child, whether it should be brought up in the faith of the father or of the mother.

How can any judge in the world decide that question when the children are very young and not able to form an opinion for themselves. The father professes one faith and the mother professes another. It is an insoluble problem. I cannot see how any Judge can decide that if absolutely equal weight is to be given to the desire of the mother and of the father. That is the reason why I always press in this question two points which, I think, if they are acceded to, and put into the Bill, do offer a partial solution of this question. I ask the Minister to consider the desirability of adding to this Bill two new points. First of all, that where the spouses at the time of marriage entered into a contract that the child should be brought up in a particular belief, that contract should he upheld unless its performance is waived. The second point is this: that where the husband and wife believe in the same religion at the time of marriage there should be an implied contract that the children should be brought up in that faith unless both parties are willing that the implied contract should be departed from.

Two Clauses of the sort I suggest do not provide a complete solution to this problem. but they go a long way towards provider, a solution for what is the main cause of these applications being made TO the Courts. The suggestions which I am making to my hon. Friend are quite reasonable proposals. I was a member of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons who sat on this question in July, 1923. We had before us Mi. Cecil Chapman, the well-known Metropolitan magistrate, who gave evidence. I asked him his views concerning these two proposals. I put these questions to him, and he thought that what I have suggested would provide a solution of the question. In his evidence he gave further illustration of the great difficulty of adjudicating upon these differences as between husband and wife without some rule of this character. Let me quote some of his evidence. Let me, he said, to illustrate the necessity of protecting the wife against injustice in this matter of religion, give an example within my experience: A lady of the Anglican faith was married to a husband of the same faith, and reasonably looked forward to her children, if she had any, being brought up in her own faith. Before the first child was born her husband became a Roman Catholic and immediately after the child's birth, without consulting or informing the wife, he had the child baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. The lady had several children, and on the birth of each the husband adopted the same course, to the great sorrow of his wife. The result has been tragic in the separation from all her children of an admirable mother, who had every right to have her wishes consulted and. if the Court saw fit, in the interest of the children, respected. He gave another illustration, too. I am not putting this in any way from a de-nominational point of view, because the same principle applies to any religion. I do, however, ask the Minister to consider the absence in the present Bill of any solution of this problem. I say, and I say it with great confidence, that the Judge who has to decide upon this question of between husband and wife in regard to the faith in which their young children are to be brought up, will be absolutely at a loss, and I cannot see what objection there can be to importing into the Bill two Clauses of the character I have described. These, I believe, would be acceptable to members of all religious denominations, and certainly they were to Members of the House of Commons who were associated with me on the Joint Committee to which I have referred. Of course. I do not oppose the Bill in any way. In general principle it is a very sound Measure indeed: but the working of it may be extremely difficult. I do ask the Minister to realise that the working may be greatly facilitated by the adoption of the two points I have endeavoured to put before the House.

Miss WILKINSON

I desire to bring a note of dissent into the chorus of praise with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have received this Bill. It is true that large bodies of organised women are backing this Bill, but we do not say that it is perfect. This Bill is part of the constant agitation on the part of women of all shades of political thought to translate into law the equality that has been granted to thorn in the political field. Although we have a preamble which says that it is sought to establish equality in law between the sexes, in actual fact this Bill does nothing of the kind. What it does is to establish equality where the people in question cannot agree; but where people are living apparently quite happily, whatever goes on behind the lace curtains, the fact still remains that the woman is not regarded as equal. I liked the assumption of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), and of the late Solicitor-General on this side, that in such a home it must be taken for granted that the man is necessarily the head. Of course, we know that in the average home that is anything but the case, but still the fact does remain that as far as actual equality is concerned, unless there is some dispute, the whole assumption of the law is that the man, as always, remains completely the head of the household.

I do want to differ quite considerably front the right hon. Gentleman on my own Front Bench. It is always perfectly easy when we are dealing with questions in which women are concerned to adopt the reduetio ad absurdum argument and to draw pictures of what will happen if these dreadful women are allowed to have their own way. That has been done to such an extent in the suffrage Debates, that we get quite used to it, but I would draw the attention of both right hon. Gentlemen to the fact that in countries where equality of guardianship, complete equality before the law, does exist, these dreadful things do not, as a matter of fact, happen, and that family life remains completely happy as before. Having indicated these little dissensions, so to speak, may I say that on the whole we welcome this Bill, and we hope it will go through? We welcome it as an instalment of the time when there shall be many more women sitting on these benches, and when it will not be completely taken for granted that women have to be satisfied with any crumbs that fall from the table of the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides.

I want to stress the importance of Clause 3 of this Bill, because that does, for the first time, give a mother the opportunity to ask for maintenance as well as custody. There have been many real' tragedies where the mother could have been granted the custody of her child, because of the behaviour of the father, but where she was unable to exercise that right, under the late law, because it was not possible for her to get maintenance. Improvement in the machinery for securing the enforcement of maintenance orders is very necessary. Hon. Members who have had anything to do with work in the Courts, or with social work in our great cities, know how many real tragedies there are in the attempts of women to enforce maintenance orders. I know of cases, in factories with which I was connected, of women waiting outside the factory, jeered at Fry the men, in order to get from their husbands the maintenance which had been granted under an order of the Court. I wish that Clause could have been strengthened, but I realise that if it were to be it would introduce a very difficult and contentious Clause into the Bill, which might endanger the whole Bill, and I would rather that anything than that should happen. I am glad the Government have given facilities to the Bill, and I take it as a sign of grace on the part of the Conservative party, a sign that they are prepared to honour, to this extent, the pledges they made in their Election speeches. I hope this will lead them to do still better things, and that we shall get that equality in the franchise which we ask for.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

The hon. Member who has just sat down said she was going to import a certain element of dissension into the discussion, and I am afraid I also must introduce something of that element from another point of view. This Bill was proposed in a conciliatory and moderate speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and it was supported not only with moderation, but with something Tiat might call enthusiastic adulation, by the late Solicitor-General. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) also said he would support the Bill, though he pointed out certain very grave dangers which arise from the Bill as it stands, and pointed them out with great effect. Speaking as one who looks back a great many years, what strikes me when I think of this legislation dealing with the marriage state is," What can be the experience of people who suppose that married life is to he carried on by constant dispute, by the careful weighing of the comparative power of the two partners, by getting one's powers tabulated and catalogued and regulated by the Court?" Do they not think that, once such interference is introduced into married life, once there exists between man and wife such a difference of opinion on these matters, it would be far better for both of them to break that bond which is either the best thing in the world, and the most sacred, or else the curse of life?

I was also very much struck by references from hon. Members which seemed to indicate that the inferiority of woman is taken as a commonplace. Do hon. Members really think that the mother is generally left aside. if there is a question of a choice of school, even of religion? Do not hon. Members think that as a rule the first question that occurs to each of them is to ask the other, "What do you think about it? I want to know first what you think before I give my view."

Miss WILKINSON

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was merely discussing legal equality? I was not discussing any state of affection between the parties.

Sir H. CRAIK

T quite understand. But just. think what Clause 3 of the Bill implies. A woman still residing with her husband, pretending to keep up the tragic farce of living together, is to consult lawyers to find out what the probabilities of the law are, and all the time that she is living with, and pretending to be the partner of her husband, she is concocting a legal case which is to oust him from his share in control. Do hon. Members think that the marriage of sons and daughters is to be a matter of discussion, and of legal settlement, in which one parent or the other is to be superior, and to set aside the views of the other-? Sometimes a case may arise. I wonder if hon. Members remember the story, in one of Jane Austen's novels, of Elizabeth Bennet, who received a proposal from that egregious ass Mr. Collins. She was told by her mother that if she did not at once accept him, and marry him, she would never see her mother's face again. Then her mother took her to Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Bennet's verdict was:" Elizabeth, you are in a most unpleasant position. If you do not marry Mr. Collins, your mother will never see you again; and I am sorry to tell you that if you do marry Mr. Collins, you must say ' Good-bye ' to me." These situations do arise, and they are settled much better by affection, by love, by mutual reverence and perhaps by humour. Do not introduce into them your abominable legal phraseology, with resort to the Court, and cataloguing of the rights of one side or the other. This Bill may go forward— I am not going to oppose it—but I feel bound to say I am perfectly certain I am stating the opinion of a great many people outside this House when I say that I feel no such complete sympathy with or interest in it as has been expressed from all sides.

Mr. R. DAVIES

The speeches we have heard this evening from the hon. lady on my left and from the two hon. Gentlemen on the other side indicate clearly the problems the Home Office has had to contend with in another sphere. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that this Bill does not in the least interfere with the question of marriage.

Sir H. CRAIK

I think that, if you will look at Clause 9, you will find it does.

Mr. DAVIES

If the right hon. Gentleman representing the Scottish Universities will allow me, I will explain myself. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that this Bill will interfere with normal married life. It does nothing of the kind. It will deal only with those cases in which husband and wife completely fail to agree. That is the object of the Bill. As one who has had something to do with this Bill when the Labour Government existed, I will say another word or two. I am glad the Bill has again been brought before the House, because it marks one of the. greatest steps forward in favour of the mother. She is under a disadvantage now, and this Bill proposes to remove serious disabilities under which she is suffering. In my view it is only the beginning of things. I think the House ought to understand very clearly that the Bill, as I will repeat for the information of my right hon. Friend, will not disturb in the least the existence of affection between the normal couple; it will deal only with problems arising when that affection has departed. It seeks to deal, too, with what I should imagine, is probably the greatest human tragedy of all. It aims at promoting the. welfare of the children. When the husband and wife do quarrel to the extent that they must part, the children, as a rule, are the greatest sufferers. One of the main objects of this Bill is to deal with the welfare of the child in such cases; and I think it will do a great deal towards solving one of our most difficult problems. I am very interested in this type of child, because up to now the neglected child, the child who is bereft of home, and of parents living together, is very often the child who is led into criminal ways I would like to see us all adopting the attitude which is incorporated in this Bill in order that children shall not be neglected in such a way that they will haunt the streets of our great cities and commit offences against the law. It has been rightly said that the matrimonial difficulties arise because of mixed marriages connected with religion. But the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), who made that statement, seemed to be very doubtful whether this Measure would meet the situation. It has been assumed in some quarters that in a case where the husband is a Catholic and the wife a Protestant, when they quarrel and part, that the boys should go with the father and the girls with the mother. That is an impossible situation, and I would suggest we must somehow get over such a difficulty. I do not agree that such a situation is absolutely impossible of solution. I do not think there is any human difficulty impossible of solution; and this Bill ought to have a chance to see what it. can do to remedy the grievances under which these people are suffering at the present time.

8.0 P.M.

There are several points not included in the Measure which I think were included in the Bill introduced by Mrs. Wintringham. There is the question of the amount settled by the Court that the husband should pay to the wife. The employer would be entitled under the original Bill to deduct the amount out of the man's wages at the pay office. I resisted that view because, the proposal may be all right to a man and woman living in the higher social scale, in a very large house, probably a residence so big that they would not see each other for three or six months. But in the case of a man and his wife residing in a house and living in two rooms up and two down, we ought not to lay it down in that case that the deduction shall be made from the man's wages by the employer. That is impossible. I trust the women's organisations will never go back, even for the purpose of: helping the wife and suffering children, to the point of introducing the abominations of the Truck Acts. I cannot conceive how a husband and wife can possibly live together in such circumstances, and I am positive that the. situation would he even worse if the man found that the employer was empowered to deduct a certain amount from his. wages and to hand it over to his wife.

There are two or three other provisions left out of the Bill. There is, however, one point which I am pleased is included. It is the case of the woman who is coin-pellet] to leave home before taking proceedings. She is undoubtedly under a disadvantage because she must. leave; her husband before she gets an Order from the Court against him. Under this Bill she would be entitled to secure an Order while she is living with him; but the Order of the Court would not be operative until she leaves her husband. That is a safeguard which we are bound to make. f we allowed the wife to remain with I he husband, and the Order of the Court against him was made operative whilst. she lived with him, one can imagine the consequences. If the husband declined to pay the amount ordered by the Court, the wife could sue him and probably send him to gaol because he had not complied with the Order. That point has happily been left out of this Bill. No Substantial alteration has been made from the Bill which the Labour Government brought in on the last occasion except the date. That was imperative.

There is something in what was said by the hon. Member for Moss Side. I did not quite catch what he meant when he said that there ought to be an indication-given to the Judge when this Bill becomes law, so that he may be able to decide who shall have the dominant voice with regard to the children. In fact, what is fundamental to this Bill is that neither the husband nor the wife shall have a. dominant voice at all: they are equal. That is the definite principle underlying the whole of the Bill; and I trust that when this Measure comes to be worked out in the Courts of the land it will lie found to operate so smoothly and that it will mark the beginning of a new era. I am not really so much concerned about the man and his wife who are foolish enough to quarrel. But I am very much concerned indeed about the provisions in this Bill that will rescue the children from the consequences of such a quarrel.

I hope the House will have no hesitation whatever in passing this Measure, and in giving it a Second Reading tonight. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who rather hinted that this Rill was an interference between husband and wife, that the chief aim and object of this Measure is to try and compose those differences. The Courts are, T understand, in part already carrying out the object of this Bill.

This is one of a series of Measures which the women's organisations are desirous of carrying through the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the granting of the franchise to women is responsible for many Measures which are brought before us affecting women and children. I hope the women will continue to take an interest in problems of this kind. There is still a great deal to he done in the direction of bringing influence to hear on this House to induce us to bring Measures of this kind to fruition. For these reasons I hope this Measure will be given a Second Reading to-night.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

As far as this Bill is concerned, I think it meets with the general approval of those with whom I am in the habit of acting. It. is not quite on all fours with Mrs. Wintringham's Bill, and I am not sure that some of the omitted provisions should not be inserted. I hope the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will not take too rigid a line in Committee, but be prepared to consider some of these omissions from the Bill when we reach the Committee stage. I do not accept the doctrine put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), although I fully appreciate his sincerity. I lave no doubt that he resents strongly the invasion of the rights of the home whenever we embark upon any new legislation. There are so many of these old and traditional rights which the right hon. Gentleman has defended in the past that I am not surprised to find him defending them to-day. The main object of this Bill is expressed in Clause 1 in the words shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration. However we may pay respect to the principle of the equality of the sexes, and I have done all I could to support every Measure for the equality of the sexes both in regard to the franchise and otherwise, I think it is necessary at this stage that we should have prime regard to the welfare of the infant, and that ought to affect us in any decision we arrive at. I give this Bill general support, and my hon. Friends will do their best to secure its passage into law at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. SPENCER

I nave some misgivings with regard to the actual working of this Bill when it comes into law. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench seem to be very pleased indeed because Clause 3 gives the woman the right to go to Court for the custody of the child and for maintenance while she is still living with her husband. There may be a measure of reasonableness with regard to that, providing that on the receipt of the order from the magistrate for the right of custody and maintenance, the wife was going to leave the husband. I can conceive the granting of an order to a woman under which the right of maintenance might become a means not only of irritation, but a means of driving the two parties further apart if the woman held what is tantamount to a big stick and was able to say, "Unless you do this or that I shall get an order, and take charge of the children." There is a danger there which, instead of lending to peace and quietness and the general welfare of the children, it is just possible that the granting of this privilege when she is not going to leave the husband may lead to difficulties which would not otherwise arise.

This Bill gives the father the right on death or before to appoint a guardian. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the most salutary influence in domestic life in regard to children is the father, and when the father's influence fails in a home in wise counsel and guardianship and proper oversight, then I would not give a very great deal for the home. I am not belittling the influence of the mother. From some points of view her influence is greater than the father, but I prefer the father from the point of view of the stronger hand of guardianship. Supposing a mother does leave her husband and goes to live with her sister, she is then to have equal rights with the father. Supposing the father marries again, and the sister thinks the children are not being treated properly, that is not going to add to peace or the comfort of the children. I agree with the objects of the Bill, but I can also see that there are a great many dangers.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.