MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL. (Hansard, 21 November 1930)

§ Mr. BARR
I beg to move "That the Dill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is one which is very familiar to the House. I think it has been before the House every Session for the last five years, and whenever it has been put to the proof it has always secured the all but unanimous support of the House. In 1926 it received its Second Reading without a Division. In 1927 it was discussed in this House on 4th March, a Friday afternoon, and on 1st April it again received a Second Reading without a Division. I think that there is only one representative of the Opposition present, but I should like to say that we have no quarrel with the amount of support we received from the then Conservative Government. Time and again they said they would not oppose the Second Reading. On one occasion they said that the Parliamentary Counsel had examined the Measure and found it watertight, and that all the degrees intended had been included. In order to give emphasis and authority to what I am saying, I may mention that the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), speaking on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Home Office, said that they expected and desired the Bill to be read a Second time and to be dealt with in Committee. On that occasion, although it had such a good passage, owing to the congestion in the Committees, it was 1st December before it was reported to the House, and, consequently, in that year the Bill could make no further progress. In the following year it made much greater progress. On 19th April, it was given a Second Reading without a Division, and on 9th July it received its Third Reading without a Division in this House. It secured a Second Reading in another place, but through circumstances, into which the Rules of Order, I understand, do not allow me to enter, it just missed the Third Reading by 26 votes to 25—a 'majority of one.
What is the difficulty with which the Bill deals? It is within the knowledge of this House that in 1907, after a very great controversy in the country, marriage was authorised with a deceased wife's sister. That Measure was stoutly 859 contested on ecclesiastical and other grounds, and, consequently, supporters of that Measure were only too pleased to get their Bill through as a single issue, and I think they even went the length of saying that they would not press for anything further—that they would regard it as a special issue, and would not press it further. The only extension that was made was that deceased wife's sister would include a sister of the half-blood. Then, in 1921, there came the corresponding Measure—the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act. So that now, to put it very plainly and very shortly, it is possible for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; it is possible for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but it is not possible to marry the children of either. Relationship more remote is left untouched.
I will say a word on the contents of the Bill. The first Clause is rather involved. It almost reminds one of the old lines: Sisters and brothers have I none. This man's father was my father's son. I am not going to attempt to solve that. I would only say that if a lady wrote those lines, she would not be able to marry the mysterious man referred to. The point is that under this Bill a, man may marry his deceased wife's niece by marriage, and a woman may marry her husband's nephew by marriage; that is the substance of it. It may be argued that there is no very great demand for this Measure, and that matters might be in this Bill which are not included in it. It will be within the knowledge of the House that in the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, relief is given to the clergyman if he has any conscientious objection, and a man who is willing to perform the service can be brought in from the same diocese. The other point in that Measure is that a clergyman who might wish to marry his deceased wife's sister would still be subject to any canonical censure or Church censure that might be imposed upon him.
At any rate, we have not included that, because we do not wish to overburden the Bill. I do not think there is any need for those provisions now, because the late Archbishop of Canterbury testified that while he had been opposed to the Deceased Wife's Sister Act he had to confess that it had worked with extreme 860 fairness. In any case, it is a Committee point if anyone wishes to try to get it inserted in the Bill.
It may be asked whether there is any demand for this Measure. As one who has been associated with the movement for a number of years, I have received scores of letters on the subject. People go abroad to get the marriage performed and afterwards they come back to this country and find that the marriage is not legal here. People may say, "Why do not these people regulate their affections and keep outside the prohibited degrees?" Attachments grow up, sometimes, without a knowledge of the law, and I say it is far better to regularise this matter than that resort should he had to illegitimate courses. By passing this Measure we shall be ridding ourselves of an anomaly which has appeared in our legislation, and we shall be carrying out the two Acts of 1907 and 1921 to their simple logical conclusion. It will be a little act of justice which will relieve a small number of persons, not perhaps a great multitude, of a grievance and a hardship that are very real. The only other thing I would say in conclusion is that it is a non-party Measure. If we look at the names on the back of the Bill we see that it has representative support from the three parties in the House, and I do not anticipate that there will be any opposition. As I have said, every facility was given us by the late Conservative Government, and I presume that we shall have at least equal facilities from the Labour Government.

§ Mr. DAVID GRENFELL
I beg to second the Motion.
As the time is so far advanced, and hon. Members are anxious to get away, I shall content myself with formally doing so.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)
This Bill is identical with previous Bills on the subject. III 1928 a Bill was presented to the House by Sir Arthur Shirley Benn and passed through all its stages here without discussion, but it was thrown out in another place by one vote. The opinion generally expressed in the House of Lords was that so important an alteration in our social life ought not to be undertaken without more considera 861 tion than was possible at so late a stage in the Session. The Bill is complementary to previous legislation on the subject of the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage. The effect of the Bill is to remove the prohibition against a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's niece or between a man and his uncle's widow. Marriage with a deceased wife's sister or a deceased brother's widow has already been legalised by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Acts 1907 and 1921.
There is no reason for objecting to the present Bill so far as the Home Office or the Scottish Office is concerned. If this Bill is passed it will, no doubt, help in a few cases of hardship arising under the existing law. The objection taken to previous Bills on this subject came mainly from Members who had strong views on the sanctity of the old canon law. The drafting of the Bill, which is rather complicated, has been scrutinised by the Parliamentary Counsel. It is in proper shape, and it covers all the possible cases of marriage with nephews and nieces by marriage. As I am advised, the Bill is in the proper form to give effect to the objects of the promoters, and the Government do not wish to raise any objection to its receiving its Second Reading.