ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 16 May 1930)

§ Mr. MacROBERT
I understand that an Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has been put down in my name, and it contradicts another Amendment which I have put down.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) intend to move the Motion standing in his name for the recommittal of the Bill?

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
Yes.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That will be taken first.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted."
This Bill received its Second Reading, as Bills often do, without any discussion. It was passed, I believe, late at night, and there really was not a Second Reading Debate. It is a Bill which alters fundamentally the position in regard to illegitimate children. This matter has a very long history in Scotland, and, I suppose, in England too. In primitive times, before there was any Poor Law, and every person was tied to his parish—it was impossible for any man to run away—there was a practice which will be found mentioned in Hardy's "Well Beloved" and referred to in Ludovici's works. At a time when there was no Poor Law a childless marriage was regarded as the greatest of human misfortunes, because it meant that parents might die of starvation in their old age. Everybody was then very poor and had no one to support them outside the family. In those circumstances people very often formed what are called "irregular alliances," but always when there was the prospect of there being fruit of those alliances they ended in the legal bond of matrimony. There were very few what might be called illegitimate births in those days, because the man was tied to his own locality, and the pressure and force of public opinion 2222 was so very great that it was utterly impossible for there to be anything in the nature of the cruel desertion of the woman who had confided in him. Subsequently, when there was greater freedom, people moved about.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am trying to connect the hon. and learned Member's speech with his motion to recommit the Bill.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
Well, my Lord [Laughter]—Mr. Speaker—I was proposing to give, as far as I could venture to do so, what might be called a, Second Reading speech.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That certainly would not be in order. The hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the simple reasons why he asked for the Bill to be recommitted, and it must be only a short speech.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
My reason for asking for the recommittal of the Bill is that it is one which makes a fundamental alteration in the Law which has prevailed in these cases hitherto, and we ought not to take such action unless the Measure has been adequately discussed. It is a Measure entirely changing the whole law of Scotland. If Amendments which I propose to move subsequently are accepted, the Bill will be made comparatively innocuous. What I put down was a proposal that the Bill should be read this day six months, but it has appeared in a different form. I will reserve the main portion of my argument for my Amendments.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I venture to say that a Motion for the recommital of a Bill can never have been brought forward with less real pretext than on this occasion. The proof of that is shown by how little the hon. and gallant Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had to say when at last he brought himself to the point at issue. This Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule and was passed without any opposition. Not a word was said against it, and there was no Division. Then two days were spent on it in Committee, where there was very full discussion of the various Clauses. The hon. and learned Member now says that the Bill fundamentally alters the Law of Scotland. That seems to be a very late discovery on his part. On looking at the report of the Debate in Com- 2223 mittee I find that the hon. and learned Member did not take the trouble to attend on the first day, and on the second day he did not show any hostility to any provision of the Bill until we reached Clause 3. The hon. and learned Member only spoke on that Clause when we were nearing the end of our discussion on the Bill. He was very late in discovering this wonderful fundamental change in the law of Scotland. As we had no division in Committee and no division when the Bill was introduced, and as the hon. and learned Member has been so very late in showing any opposition to the Bill, I beg strenuously to oppose this Motion.

Duchess of ATHOLL
There are three new clauses standing on the Order Paper in my name. The first—(Power to attach pension or income in case of default)—was put down late last night, before I had had an opportunity of consulting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert), who has taken so great an interest in the Bill and who has helped us so much in connection with it. I find that he thinks that this Clause needs further consideration, and therefore I do not propose to move it. The second Clause—(Power to vary existing decrees)—was put down in an endeavour to bring the law of Scotland into closer similarity with the law of England, but here again I find that my legal friends think that the Clause needs some consideration, and accordingly I do not propose to move it. With regard to the third Clause—(Change of address of person against whom decree is granted)—I think that possibly it might be considered in the House of Lords, but that at any rate it had better receive further consideration.