HC Deb 30 November 1932 vol 272 cc823-8
Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Matrimonial Causes. 3.30 p.m.

I apologise to the House for taking this course, which has not been taken previously in this Parliament by a private Member, but I take it for a special reason which I will explain. This is a modest Bill, directed to one of the recommendations made by a Royal Commission 20 years ago. It seeks to make two changes in the law, one a substantial, and the second a minor and consequential change. The substantial change is to add to the statutory grounds of divorce the ground that the respondent is incurably insane, and has been a certified lunatic continuously for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The minor change is a consequential one which enlarges the present legal provision withholding from a petitioner the relief granted if the condition of mind is caused by his or her neglect or bad conduct.

Complaint is being made, I observe, that the House is being asked to deal with this Bill instead of a Bill on the general lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission 20 years ago. The House is aware that after a very careful and long inquiry into matrimonial grievances the Royal Commission made recommendations that the law of divorce should be expanded to contain a number of grounds. My view, and I think it is a view which will commend itself to the House, is that a Bill of that character, making drastic and far-reaching changes in the law should be undertaken only by the Government itself. It is no part of the duty of a private Member to assume such a responsibility, and I am bound to say that I think persons outside this House are incurring a grave responsibility by exciting hopes in the minds of aggrieved citizens that the present Administration is contemplating any such large change in the law. As far as I know there is no warrant for such a view, and I am extremely sorry that persons of position should hold out what I believe to be a false expectation.

I have taken this course to-day with the greatest possible respect—and with apologies to my friend the hon. Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), who is about to open a very important Debate—because I felt I could not take the responsibility of exciting hopes outside this House that relief of this character was in expectation unless I could have behind me the opinion of this House as recorded on its reception of this Bill. Why I selected this particular cause is that the Royal Commission paid direct attention to this aspect of matrimonial relief, and put on record these words, of which I would venture to remind the House: Indeed, incurable insanity is more effective in destroying the marriage relationship than any other causes which we have recommended as grounds for divorce. A very eminent medical man who gave evidence before the Commission used these words, with which I am not in full agreement, in describing the social difficulty created by insanity. Dr. Robert Jones said: The marriage contract is ended by death, and should similarly and for the same reason be ended by confirmed insanity, which is social and domestic extinction. A practical difficulty which the House will desire to face in considering this matter is whether we can be satisfied that this condition of incurable insanity can be relied on. As to that the Royal Commission heard a good deal of evidence, and the limit of five years is founded upon their recommendations. They say: It was suggested that it may be difficult to determine the fact that a patient is absolutely incurable and that conflicting medical evidence may leave the question unsettled. The evidence clearly shows that if a time limit be given the difficulty becomes almost negligible, and there appears to be no reason to suppose that if the ground is confined to lunacy pronounced incurable after five years continuous confinement any real difficulty would be felt. In this Bill the limit of five years recommended by the Commission has been adopted, but if the House in its wisdom thinks that a longer period should be inserted it is open to the House to do it, because the title of the Bill has been so framed that any such change as the House may desire to make in the Measure can be undertaken.

I would say in conclusion, with the very greatest possible respect, that I am not speaking here for myself. I am speaking here for hundreds of men and women among all classes in this country who have suffered, frequently in silence, from this terrible tragedy of an insane spouse. This Bill does not put upon any such person the duty of proceeding to a divorce, it leaves it optional; but if it is desired, after a long and continuous and hopeless experience of insanity, to sever the marriage tie, why should not that end be effected? I venture to say that opinion outside this House is overwhelmingly in favour of this course. I appreciate, although I do not share, the conscientious objection which is taken to this Bill. There are those who think that in no circumstances should the law permit the severance of the marriage tie, but it has long been the law of this land that in circumstances determined by Parliament the courts shall be authorised to do so. Therefore it is much too late in the day to urge that ground. However, everybody is entitled to speak for himself, and I confess that I cannot meet that ground of objection. I put this Bill forward on this simple ground. Here is an admitted and terrible grievance which afflicts large numbers of people. It is a grievance which appeals to the general sense of the community. In the interests of domestic life the relief pro- vided for in this Bill should be speedy. I ask the House, by their reception of the Measure this afternoon, to send to many persons outside the House that word of encouragement for which they are waiting.

3. 40p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

I oppose this Bill simply and solely because I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out his case in regard to those who are incurably insane. How is he able to apply the term "incurably insane" to any particular person? I am one of those who are perhaps old-fashioned and orthodox. I believe that the consummation of marriage ought to be for life, although it is rather a new fashion to disregard the old injunction what therefore God bath joined together let no man put asunder. What are the complexities of married life when one person is bound to an insane partner in comparison with those that would arise if a man who was cured of insanity came back and found that his wife had already been married? Think of the complexities that would arise in the family life of the nation. I am convinced that, for the purity of the household and for the benefit of all that is good and sane in the body politic, it is most essential that the family tie should be strictly preserved.

I agree that it is a misfortune if one partner to a marriage should be stricken down, but the only place in the world where sympathy is to be found is in the home. The joining together as man and wife ought to be the most sacred tie between men and women. It is proposed that if one is stricken down through no fault of his own and becomes insane, you should be able to apply to the court to get redress and to get freedom, although you have said that you have bound yourselves together for life as man and wife. That appears to be making a laughing stock of marriage; the most vital tie that hinds men and women together to-day is being flouted. I am convinced, from the point of view of marriage, that for this House to agree to this Motion would be a most serious step.

The hon. and learned Member was most correct when he said that he was not speaking for himself. It appears to me that the National Government have a life of about five years before it. Five years according to the ordinary run—[An HON. MEMBER: No."]—well, four years. That is one year in advance. The Bill would establish as a statutory ground for divorce that the respondent had been incurably insane for five years before the petition. When I remember that the hon. and learned Member was sitting on these benches and that he has now gone over to the National Government, and that there is a long period of practically five years to run, I would like to know whether that is considered to be a form

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holford Knight, Miss Pickford, Mr. Groves, Mr. Denman, Mr. Mabane, Miss Rathbone, and Mr. Pike.

of insanity that might be brought within the terms of the Bill. That might be a reductio ad absurdum, but I am fully convinced that any hon. Member who values home life and Who values the best interests of this nation, will give no support to the Motion but will go into the Lobby to vote against it.

Question put, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Matrimonial Causes.

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 42.

Division No. 5.] AYES. [3.45 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Groves, Thomas E. North, Captain Edward T.
Astbury, Lieut.-Con. Frederick Wolfe Grundy, Thomas W. Nunn, William
Banfield, John William Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Palmer, Francis Noel
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Peake, Captain Osbert
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Harbord, Arthur Peat, Charles U.
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Harris, Sir Percy Petherick, M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hicks, Ernest George Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.) Hornby, Frank Pike, Cecil F.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Howard, Tom Forrest Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Rea, Walter Russell
Cautley, Sir Henry S. John, William Reld, William Allan (Derby)
Chalmers, John Rutherford Ker, J. Campbell Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Kerr, Hamilton W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Kimball, Lawrence Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Clayton Dr. George C. Kirkpatrick, William M. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Knox, Sir Alfred Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cook, Thomas A. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter O.
Cooper, A. Duff Levy, Thomas Soper, Richard
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Lewis, Oswald Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Daggar, George Loder, Captain J. de Vere Storey, Samuel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Strickland, Captain W. F.
Davison, Sir William Henry Mabane, William Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Denman, Hon. R. D. McEntee, Valentine L. Turton, Robert Hugh
Duggan, Hubert John McKeag, William Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Wayland, Sir William A.
Edwards, Charles Maitland, Adam Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Elmley, Viscount Mander, Geoffrey le M. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Worthington, Dr. John V.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Flint, Abraham John Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Glossop, C. W. H. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Mr. Holford Knight and Colonel Goodman.
NOES
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Parkinson, John Allen
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Pearson, William G.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Percy, Lord Eustace
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W. Hanley, Dennis A. Rankin, Robert
Broadbent, Colonel John Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rosbotham, S. T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Runge, Norah Cecil
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lawson, John James Scone, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Crossley, A. C. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Fremantle, Sir Francis Marsden, Commander Arthur
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gledhill, Gilbert Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Mr. Logan and Mr. Tinker.