HC Deb 31 October 1944 vol 404 cc712-43

3.0 p.m.

Mrs. Tate (Frome)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (b.)

The Committee will recollect that when the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, was passed, we extended the grounds of divorce and made it possible for marriages to be dissolved for cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity in addition to infidelity. Until then infidelity had been the only ground for divorce in this country, and hon. Members who were in the House at that time will remember that there was very strong opposition in the country to extending the grounds for divorce for any reason whatsoever. There is a very strong case to be made out—whether or not any one agrees with it—for the view that marriage is so sacred a sacrament, and an institution so vital to the fabric and health of society, that in no circumstances whatever should it be possible to terminate it. There is no case, however, for unjust divorce laws, and I maintain that if the present Bill goes through our divorce laws will not only be far more unjust in the future than they have been in the past, but will also be absolutely chaotic. In the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, a provision was inserted which made it impossible for any marriage in this country to be broken on any grounds whatsoever until the parties had been married for three years, except in cases of very exceptional depravity or hardship.

What are we trying to do under this War Marriages Bill? We are wiping away that three-year provision, but are we wiping it away for every one who marries during the course of the war? Not at all. If an English girl marries an Englishman or a Colonial, or a foreigner, who is domiciled in this country, she has to wait for three years before she can institute divorce proceedings, no matter what her marriage partner's conduct may be. I want Members to understand this point. Two Polish brothers might come over to this country in the early days of the war. Let us suppose that one of them starts a little business here and intends to make this country his home and becomes, therefore, domiciled in this country.

Then he is called up under the National Service Acts and goes off to Poland. His wife never sees him again. He is unfaithful to her; he is cruel; he commits every crime which a husband can commit, but because he says that he started a business here, and is domiciled in this country, that girl cannot proceed to terminate her marriage for three years. Her sister may marry the Pole's brother, who may not have started a business in this country, and never became domiciled here. Simply because he is not domiciled in this country she, if he gives her cause, can start divorce proceedings within one week of the date of the marriage.

I realise that marriage in war-time is entered into in an emotional state of mind, and that is the reason which the Government give for bringing in this Bill. The Solicitor-General, in answer to my contention that there was no case for wiping away the three-year clause, said, when winding up the Second Reading, that in these cases where marriage breaks down it is almost certain to break down early. He went on: I commend to the House a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), in which he dealt with the emotional background of these marriages, in aid of this point I am making—they will agree that they are likely to break down early. If we are going to give any remedy for this difficulty, it has to be a speedy remedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 90.] I do ask the Attorney-General, in all seriousness, why the emotional background to marriage is more emotional if you marry in war-time a man who is domiciled overseas, than if you marry a man who is domiciled in this country. You may marry a man who is domiciled in this country, but you may never have a chance of living with him in war-time. You may see very little of him. He may be moved overseas very shortly after the date of marriage. Is the Attorney-General going to tell me that because he is domiciled in this country there is, at least, a greater possibility of knowing his family? If that is so, may I ask the Attorney-General since when were "in-laws" considered an aid to the stability of marriage? Indeed, many of those men who are domiciled in this country during the war period will not be Englishmen. They will not have their relations over here. You will know no more of their background than if they were domiciled overseas.

I have said that what we do we must attempt to make just. I consider the whole Bill unjust because I think the Government should have dealt with the domicile of the woman. What I am arguing now is that they have no right whatever to sweep away the three-year Clause for one section of women, for a certain length of time, and to retain it for another section of women for all time. At least let us show consistency and make some attempt at justice. Do not let us have marriage Laws which are more difficult for girls who marry their own countrymen or men domiciled in their own country, than for women married to men domiciled overseas. I do not wish to detain the Committee long but this is a serious point. It is going to create appalling anomalies and appalling injustice. Considering how strong the feeling was that you should not break marriages before the parties at least had had a chance of knowing one another, and that the institution of marriage should be regarded as a serious undertaking, the Government have no right, and have never been given a mandate, to sweep away that provision in this hurried fashion, without any consultation with the heads of the Churches. This Bill is being hurried through in a way which would not have been possible if greater consideration and greater publicity had been given to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

I subscribe fully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has said, but I think that in her emotional resentment against a Bill of which she obviously disapproves she has not given sufficient credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I fully realise that he has done what he considered to be the best for a very large number of our people, especially our British girls, but at the same time I am afraid, to judge by the letter published by my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) in "The Times" this morning, he has created an even larger number of anomalies than those he has sought to rectify. I think also—and of course I do not say this in any spirit of antagonism—that the Bill was drafted by an English draftsman, possibly with not sufficient knowledge of Scottish law. Although my right hon. and learned Friend has taken into full consideration—

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

The Scottish Clause has, of course, been drafted by a Scottish draftsman.

Sir T. Moore

No doubt that is true. I take it I can speak on the Scottish aspect although we have not come to that part of the Bill which deals particularly with Scotland?

The Chairman

No, I do not think so. The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to speak on the Clause until we reach it.

Sir T. Moore

This Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain, and this particular Amendment affects Scottish as well as English girls.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)

Further to that point of Order, is it not the case that Clause 2, which makes Clause 1 applicable to Scotland, automatically brings the discussion on the Scottish position in Order on Clause 1?

Sir T. Moore

If I may, with great respect, suggest it, Major Milner, perhaps I might be in Order in dealing very briefly with the small point I wish to make in regard to this Amendment. I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to realise that, in Scotland, desertion has been a ground for divorce since 1573, something like 400 years, whereas in England it only became a ground for divorce in 1937, after the passage of my hon. and gallant Friend's Act. In Scotland, desertion after four years was a subject for divorce, but by my hon. and gallant Friend's Act it became three years in 1938. That is merely to show the background that in Scotland we were something like 400 years ahead of England.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

We always were.

Sir T. Moore

It was really with the purpose of giving my hon. Friend the opportunity to say so, that I made the point.

Mr. Kirkwood

I do not like to hear an Irish accent speaking on behalf of Scotland.

3.15 p.m.

Sir T. Moore

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." A voice even with an Irish accent can tell the truth just as well as the dour Doric of my hon. Friend. The point I wish to make will reveal even more fully the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1919, came into force on 2nd July, 1919, and under that Act actions were required to be raised within one year. That obviously shows that the Act was drafted, by an English draftsman ignorant of Scottish law. Take the case of a Scottish girl who was married to a soldier from Northern Rhodesia on 1st July—

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member is clearly under a misapprehension. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, did not apply to Scotland.

Sir T. Moore

That may be true, but it does not affect the strength of my argument. I was merely introducing that statement to show that the Parliamentary draftsman was not thoroughly acquainted with Scottish law, but that reference of mine to the 1937 Act has very little to do with the case I am making. It was merely to show there was a certain lack of co-operation between the Scottish and English Law Officers in the drafting of these divorce Measures. To return to my point. Take the case of a Scots girl who married a soldier from Northern Rhodesia on 1st July, 1919. I want particularly to stress the dates.

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member would be wise to leave his point until we come to Clause 2. His point has no application to the present Clause, or the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore

I am sorry I have not been given sufficient time to develop my argument to show how relevant it is to my hon. Friend's argument, but if it is your desire, Major Milner, that I should repeat what I am saying on the next Clause, I obey your Ruling.

Mr. Kirkwood

We do not want the Englishmen to get the Scots lassies.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth (Shrewsbury)

The hon. and gallant for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is of course particularly interested in the question of how this Bill affects the position in Scotland. It may well be that as in other respects, the Scottish divorce law is better than the law which prevails in this country.

The Chairman

We should not discuss that. The Section in the Matrimonial Causes Act with which it is sought to deal under this Amendment, did not apply to Scotland. Therefore, the question of Scotland does not apply.

Mr. Duckworth

I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and I return to the Amendment we are discussing. I wish very briefly to support strongly the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) because my name appears over a subsequent Amendment, which deals with the same principle in a different way. I have come to the conclusion that we members failed, at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill, to grasp the full significance of the Bill, and of the gross injustice which it will create. We are being asked in this Clause to create a special and privileged class of petitioners for divorce. We are being asked, in fact, to confer a divorce premium on any marriage between an English woman and a man who is not domiciled in this country. It may very well be that this Bill is one to deal with a special and limited problem created by the war, but I say that equally this Bill is one to encourage and facilitate ill-considered hasty war-time marriages through the very class of special and privileged people who will be created by this Clause. Some of the absurdities and injustices and anomalies that are going to arise have been very clearly pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), with his usual ability, in the letter which was published in "The Times" this morning.

The Chairman

That is not the point before the Committee at the moment. The question of the Bill and its particular anomalies does not arise on this Amendment. The only question is whether the provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, restricting the right to divorce within a period of three years after marriage, shall or shall not apply.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

Is not my hon. Friend entitled to refer to the anomalies arising from the fact that Section 1 of the 1937 Act will apply to certain citizens and not to others?

Mr. Duckworth

I will try to keep within the bounds of your Ruling, Major Milner, but it seems to me that I am entitled to call attention to the situation which will be created by this proviso. I should like to emphasise again one simple and glaring injustice that the proviso will result in. Take the case of two Englishwomen, living next door to each other, who were married at exactly the same time—after September, 1939. The first married an Englishman, who goes to serve abroad with the British Army. He deserts here, there is adultery, he gives cause for divorce; but she cannot in any circumstances begin proceedings for divorce until three years after the marriage.

The Attorney-General

I am sure my hon. Friend wants to be accurate. It is not an absolute bar: there is power in the Court to grant divorce in cases of exceptional hardship.

Mr. Duckworth

That may be so in the case of exceptional hardship, but in the ordinary way there can be no divorce until the three years have expired. Take the case of the woman next door. She marries an American soldier, who also goes abroad, deserts her, and commits adultery; and she can begin proceedings at once, without any delay. How can that situation possibly be justified? I shall be interested to hear the arguments that are brought forward to meet the criticism of this sort of case. No one can deny that the war creates special problems; I am very well aware of that. There is certainly a case for this Bill, provided that it is fair to all, and that the same conditions are made applicable to all similar cases. This is a special war-time problem. Personally, I should prefer to waive the three years' proviso in all cases coming under this Bill.

It is true that the divorce law presents immense difficulties, and particularly where marriage between people of different nationalities is involved; but, because there are injustices and hard cases and anomalies, there can be no excuse for seeking to remove them by creating still further injustices. It is well known that in the United States there are divorce laws which are a grotesque farce, and which make marriage a hollow mockery. There we have an example of what to avoid. This Amendment would bring the Bill into line with the existing law. We should be creating no special classes if it were accepted. For that reason, I support the arguments put forward with such force by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Hardie (Glasgow, Springburn)

I ask the Attorney-General not to accept the Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who has pointed out the anomalies that women who marry Englishmen have to suffer under this Bill, but I have never taken the attitude that, because some people do not benefit, we should penalise that section of the community that would benefit. We should deal with the matter in a very different manner. I agree that, as a war-time Measure, it is unsatisfactory that you should free only one section of the community from certain restrictions, but I am not prepared to say that because this Bill does not cover all the war-time marriages, as I think it ought to do, I would not grant this relief to those who are covered by the Bill. Many English girls are married to foreigners, and they should be allowed the privilege of instituting a divorce action in this country, without going to a foreign country. I would hesitate to take away that privilege, just because another section is not covered.

Petty-Officer Herbert

I do not know that there is very much to add to the excellent speeches we have heard from my hon. Friends. But, as one of the Parliamentary originators of this Clause, which it is proposed to excise, may I say a word about the merits of the Clause? I should like to dismiss the legend that it was brought in at a later date as a sop to please the Church. It was part of the original draft of the Bill, and I believe very much in the version left in—not necessarily in the original version—after Amendment in another place. This Section has two purposes. One is to discourage reckless divorce, and the other to discourage reckless marriage. Although one cannot prove a negative, there is reason to believe that this Clause has done good. I talk to a number of young people who are about to marry, and I always say to them, "Do you know about Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act?" Many of them say, ruefully, "Yes we do." Although I receive many letters about divorce every day, I have never yet had a single letter complaining about the hardships or injustices of this Section.

Let us look at the type of case to which it applies. We are not talking about desertion, because you have to wait three years in that case, anyhow. We are not talking about insanity, because you have to wait five years in that case. We are talking about cases of adultery or cruelty. Cruelty begins in the home, and the hypothesis is that in these cases no home has been set up. Therefore, we are talking in the main about adultery cases. I think we all agree that one single case of adultery does not always, and need not always, and should not always, break up a marriage. That was at one time almost a doctrine of the divorce court. It means to say that, although, technically, divorce can be had for one of adultery, in a great many cases it is a good thing to give a chance of reconciliation.

3.30 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie

Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that that is for the people themselves to consider—whether it is justified or not?

Petty Officer Herbert

All I say is that Parliament accepted that Clause in the Act of 1927. I am not saying I am right about it, but that, if it is wrong, let us cut it out for everybody in the sort of general Measure which the Solicitor-General rather vaguely foreshadowed. If it is not, if it has done good, and that is the evidence so far, then let us see whether it cannot do good in the kind of marriages we are discussing in this Bill. We are talking about getting divorce immediately for one act of adultery. We have heard in the Debates on this Bill that these marriages are made in an "emotional atmosphere" that people are carried away by uniforms and so on—though as the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has said nobody is carried away emotionally by a British uniform, it is only by foreign ones. The man goes abroad, and goes astray—or perhaps the wife. He comes back, and under this paragraph there can be a divorce at once. But there may be a child, or a child coming, and what we say is that there may still be a chance for reconciliation. What the Bill says is that it is automatically a case of "exceptional hardship" to marry an American or a Pole. I apologise for mentioning Americans and Poles—of course there are others, but one must give examples. What the Bill says to them is, "You have married an English girl. You have only to go to another hotel with another English girl, and there can be a divorce at once. Then you can go off to your own country and marry another girl, leaving perhaps two English girls, with children, to be provided for by the State." So that the real question before the Committee is: Should we say that one act of adultery may immediately break up a marriage between an American husband and an English wife, when that is not possible for the English husband, whether he marries an English or an American wife?

The Attorney-General

I have listened with great care to all the speeches, but I remain of opinion that it is right in this Bill, dealing with the circumstances with which it does deal, to retain this proviso. Let me say a word or two about the provision itself. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) knows, I played a considerable part in assisting him in the Measure which is so rightly associated with his name. What we were considering, of course, was the general law to be applied to marriages between people in this country. There are always exceptional cases, but we were considering the normal cases where the man and his home are here, where the girl and her home are here, and, very often, in the same village or town or part of a great city. In defending this position, my hon. and gallant Friend said then, as he has said to-day, that one of the reasons for it, was a chance of reconciliation. Of course, where the families are in touch with each other, if there is desertion, or the marriage breaks up, and the husband leaves his wife as a result of adultery, or without adultery, there is a far greater chance of reconciliation if both parties remain in this country. The parents may get together, because both may be in the same locality.

We were also considering the normal marriage in normal circumstances, where there is continuous cohabitation from the date of marriage for the first three years, or, indeed, until the marriage breaks up. In spite of that, in the form in which the Clause was finally carried into the Act, there was a proviso that, in cases of exceptional hardship, the Court has discretion to allow a petition to be presented. It was not an absolute right. When considering this Bill, we were faced with a problem which is the issue in this Amendment—Are the circumstances so different from the normal circumstances contemplated when Parliament passed this proviso that it would be right to abrogate it in dealing with this particular class of marriage?

I do not complain of people taking a different view, but I ask the Committee to take the view embodied in the Bill, that the circumstances are sufficiently different to make it wrong to apply this three years' proviso to the type of marriage with which we are dealing. Let us see what are the different circumstances. First, in the vast majority of cases, continuous cohabitation is impossible. Secondly, not only may continuous cohabitation be impossible, but there may be fairly prolonged absence of the husband overseas. Thirdly, the husband's home will not be here, or the home of his relatives, and, if he commits adultery, and goes to another part of the country, the chances of reconciliation are far less than in the case of the ordinary English marriage.

Petty-Officer Herbert

I have followed with great interest what the learned Attorney-General has said, but is he really raising anything different from the circumstances of the British Navy, or, indeed, of the British Army?

The Attorney-General

I have already said that some of these provisions apply only to British marriages in present circumstances. I will give reasons later, why I do not think it would be right to make alterations applying to British marriages. We are dealing with what is admitted to be a real problem, which some people have looked at very closely, and I cannot understand the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that this special problem does not demand special treatment. I cannot understand the argument which seems to say that, in these exceptional circumstances, in which there are a vast number of men from overseas away from their homes and families, who have contracted marriages in the special circumstances of war, it is odd that we should have special provision for dealing with this special problem. I think it will be quite impossible for anybody here to forecast what line the court would take if, in the type of case with which this Bill deals, the petitioner said it was a case of special hardship, or if she said, "I married this man from overseas, and I was carried away by his coming over here to fight, but he turned out a very unpleasant husband, has committed adultery and I want to be free of him." If you say that those circumstances mean special hardship, you might say that, in some British cases, war circumstances have prevented continuous cohabitation in the early months of marriage, which is one of the most firm bases of continuous happy marriage.

It may well be that the court will view that as a circumstance of exceptional hardship. I am not sure how wide the courts might exercise this in the case of a purely British wife, where many of the circumstances to which I refer, except the absence of the family which is very important from the point of view of reconciliation, may arise. We do not think it would be fair to leave it simply to these discretionary words. Whether the cir- cumstances justify abrogating the three years' rule, even with the discretionary door through which hard cases could go, I am firmly convinced that the problem which faces us in these overseas marriages is a special problem and requires special treatment. I am also convinced that, on the whole, it is right to abrogate this three years' rule in the case of such marriages.

My hon. Friends say to me that some at any rate of the circumstances to which I have referred apply to the British marriage where the husband is subject to war service and may be taken away from another part of the country and sent overseas. I agree that that is so. Then they say "If you think this is a bad rule, why do you not abrogate it altogether." There are two reasons for that. One is, that I do not think the circumstances, though to some extent parallel, are parallel all along the line. In the case of the British marriage, the probability is that both parties are in this country and everybody knows that it is the families who are the instruments of reconciliation. In the case of foreign marriages, one side of reconciliation is not here. I gather that the hon. Lady disagrees with what I said and that the majority of the Committee agree with me.

3.45 p.m.

The absence of the family is a very important point on the reconciliation side, which my hon. and gallant Friend used so forcibly when the Bill was read a Second time and has used to-day. I do not think we would be justified in making a permanent alteration in the law applying to British marriages, even for war circumstances, unless there was a far stronger case than any that has been brought before me. We had many cases brought to our notice from time to time and I personally and the Government came to the conclusion that we ought to legislate on those lines in respect of the marriages overseas. I have not had a representation that the three years' rule has been found oppressive in the case of British war marriages. I am convinced that it would be a real obstacle in the way of doing justice and giving them liberty, and I think the special circumstances fully justify the line taken in the Bill to abrogate for this special and limited purpose.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Does the learned Attorney-General lay it down that where a British man marries a British girl and there is mental cruelty, separation and adultery owing to absence from this country, neither can sue for divorce for the normal period of three years?

The Attorney-General

That is not so. Under the 1937 Act, one of the grounds on which the court can grant leave within the three years, is exceptional hardship and I should think that cruelty would certainly come within that provision.

Mr. Baxter

If a girl marries and suffers mental cruelty, separation and adultery, she cannot apply until three years are up, but an English girl marrying an American soldier, if the Bill passes, can do so. They might say, "Let us marry because you can fake adultery and we can get divorced as soon as we want." It may be caprice, a drunken romance or a real romance, but always with the thought that the House of Commons says, "Marry an American or a Pole and you need not take it seriously," while at the same time you say to the girl next door, "If you marry an Englishman and things go wrong, there is no redress for you." This girl could marry three Poles or three Americans and could go on marrying and divorcing, and almost thinking she was living on the outskirts of Reno, but the other girl must sacrifice three years. This sounds like a bad Bill. If we are to create this bad precedent of freedom to marry and to get out of it, then why not trust your own people and accept the Amendment and give them the same privilege?

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

I wish to protest against the picture that has been drawn of the girls of this country by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I have never mixed with the kind of girls he talked about, but I cannot conceive of British girls marrying in that frivolous spirit. Those I have met and have seen considering the question of marriage have looked upon it as the most serious step in their lives. The whole purpose of marriage is to establish a home with legal rights for the wife and that is the reason why girls enter marriage. To argue against this Clause on the basis of quite exceptional cases would be false and contrary to nature as far as the average family is concerned. But there are circumstances which support the exceptional nature of this Clause. In our area, there have been an exceptionally large number of marriages of girls with Poles, Norwegians and members of other nations, and it is going to raise a serious problem after the war. Some of these Poles have married, and have been shifted away to other parts of the world, and however much the parties may like one another, circumstances may divorce them and the wives may have no inclination to go to Poland or anywhere else. I would be very sad if girls in my constituency and my area were not able to free themselves at the earliest possible moment and remain in this country as British citizens in cases where these unfortunate marriages occur.

Mrs. Tate

It is because marriage is a serious institution that I moved the Amendment which stands in my name; and I must say with great respect that I was deeply shocked by one of the arguments of the Attorney-General. He said that in the case of an English girl marrying a man domiciled in this country who is moved overseas and who commits adultery, she might go to the court and the court might say, "This is indeed a case of exceptional hardship." Are we now to understand that in addition to the outrageous anomalies already created by this Bill, it is to be left to individual judges to decide what constitutes individual hardship, and that one English girl who marries a man domiciled over here will obtain her freedom in one week, while another will have to wait three years? To my mind the case of the Attorney-General—I say it with great respect, because he will appreciate that we must have different opinions on these things—makes it far worse. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter). Surely, before girls enter into these marriages with foreigners, it would be better if they realised that marriage is a serious institution, and that it should in no circumstances be broken within three years. In any case, if you have that three-year provision for a marriage with an Englishman, or a man domiciled here—because it is not necessarily an Englishman but any nationality domiciled here—you should have the same rule for a girl who marries a man domiciled overseas. I cannot withdraw my Amendment, and I shall most certainly divide the Committee on it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 38.

Division No. 41.] AYES. [3.56 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Barnes, A. J. Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M. Riley, B.
Barr, J. Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P. Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Ross Taylor, W.
Beechman, N. A. Horabin, T. L. Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Benson, G. Horsbrugh, Florence Salt, E. W.
Bernays, Captain R. H. Hunter, Sir T. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. Jackson, W. F. Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)
Bower, Norman (Harrow) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Selley, Sir H. R.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Keatings, Major E. M. Sidney, Major W. P.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Kendall, W. D. Silkin, L.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Kimball, Major L. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Kirby, B. V. Snadden, W. McN.
Bull, B. B. Kirkwood, D. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.
Bullock, Capt. M. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Burke, W. A. Lawson, H. M. (Skipton) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cadogan, Major Sir E. Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim) Leach, W. Studholme, Major H. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Cape, T. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Summers, G. S.
Cary, R. A. Liddall, W. S. Sutcliffe, H.
Castlereagh, Viscount Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Charleton, H. C. Longhurst, Captain H. C. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. Lyons, Colonel A. M. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Colegate, W. A. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Colman, N. C. D. McCallum, Major D. Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Conant, Major R. J. E. McCorquodale, Malcolm S. Thorne, W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. McKinlay, A. S. Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Critchley, A. Maclean, N. (Govan) Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Mainwaring, W. H. Tinker, J. J.
Culverwell, C. T. Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E. Tomlinson, G.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Markham, Major S. F. Touche, G. C.
Dobbie, W. Mathers, G. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Turton, R. H.
Dunglass, Lord Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Dunn, E. Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest) Walker, J.
Eccles, D. M. Montague, F. Ward, Col. Sir A. (Hull)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E. Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury) Watkins, F. C.
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watson, W. McL.
Emmett, C. E. G. C. Mort, D. L. Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Fermoy, Lord Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L. Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Frankel, D. Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor) White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.) Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Glyn, Sir R. G. C. Owen, Major Sir G. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gower, Sir R. V. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Wilmot, John
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Prescott, Capt. W. R. S. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Grenfell, D. R. Price, M. P. Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Procter, Major H. A. Woodburn, A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pym, L. R. Wootton-Davies, J. H.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans) Quibell, D. J. K.
Groves, T. E. Raikes, Flight-Lieut, H. V. A. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Gunston, Major Sir D. W. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Mr. Drewe and Major
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Buchan-Hepburn.
Hardie, Mrs. Agnes
NOES.
Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford) Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd) McGhee, H. G.
Apsley, Lady Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Oliver, G. H.
Baxter, A. Beverley De Chair, Capt. S. S. Perkins, W. R. D.
Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale) Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Petherick, M.
Boothby, R. J. G. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Rathbone, Eleanor
Bowles, F. G. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Butcher, H. W. Hubbard, T. F. Viant, S. P.
Chater, D. Jeffreys, General Sir G. D. Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Cluse, W. S. Key, C. W. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Cove, W. G. King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Cundiff, F. W. Lipson, D. L. Mrs. Tate and Lieut.-Colonel
Dagger, C. Loftus, P. C. Sir Thomas Moore
Petty-Officer Herbert

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, leave out "or for nullity of marriage."

The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Attorney-General to assure us that all is well. As I understand the state of the law, if an English girl marries a Newfoundlander—and I mention a Newfoundlander because that is an extreme case—and she goes across to Newfoundland, and subsequently wants to dissolve the marriage, she cannot do so because there is no divorce law there.

The Attorney-General

Does not that point really arise on the next Sub-section?

Petty-Officer Herbert

It will arise again and again. I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend to realise that many Members do not know even as little as I know about the law, and that I was trying to make things clear. If a girl goes over there and has some ground for nullity because the marriage was bigamous, or the husband has venereal disease, or refuses to consummate, then, owing to the extraordinary state of the law, she can come back to England and have the marriage annulled, domicile or not. This proviso excludes from the operation of this Bill, after five years from the appointed day, not only proceedings for divorce, but also for nullity. I want to know whether the Attorney-General is not limiting the facilities which exist already in relation to nullity of marriage? In passing, may I thank the Attorney-General for his very kind compliments, which are entirely undeserved. I hope that in return he will never think that my hon. Friends who were associated with that Act are not fully conscious of, and grateful for, the fine, though unobtrusive, work which he did at the time of the passing of that Act.

The Attorney-General

May I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kind words, which I entirely reciprocate? At the moment all is harmony between us, although there may be controversy ahead. As regards this Amendment, my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that under the existing law, if the proceedings are brought for nullity, there is wider jurisdiction than if they are brought for divorce. For instance, in the case of a "marriage" that really never was a marriage—where the other party was already married, or there was one or other of the extended grounds—there is authority for saying that if the marriage was celebrated here, at any rate if both parties were resident here at the time of the proceedings, the court will deal with them. This Bill does not affect that at all. That jurisdiction remains unimpaired. What we did in this Clause—and I think I can explain it without contravening the rules of Order—was that we desired that the Bill should apply to divorce proceedings and nullity proceedings. If the parties are domiciled here, there is the fullest jurisdiction, both in divorce and nullity. In nullity, you may have jurisdiction although there is no domicile, if there is celebration of the marriage and residence at the time of the proceedings. We thought that the simplest thing to say was that in respect of both divorce and nullity the court should have the fullest jurisdiction that it has in both classes of case where there is domicile. We are not impinging on the ordinary rule with regard to nullity; indeed, it would be quite wrong if we did. If the Committee will follow the words in the proviso, which make the point clear, they will see that they say: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply. This Sub-section is governed by earlier words conferring the jurisdiction under this Act. When the time has run out under the proviso it will be quite impossible for any argument even to be suggested that the ordinary Common Law rule as to jurisdiction in nullity cases is applicable to any proceedings that may be taken.

Petty-Officer Herbert

In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Tate

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, leave out from "day," to end of Sub-section.

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the law shall be the same for men domiciled in this country as it is for men who are domiciled overseas. By the vote taken a few moments ago we have swept away the provision whereby men domiciled overseas and their wives could not institute divorce proceedings in this country in any circumstances whatever for three years. I approve of that provision, and I deeply deplore that it has been swept away for one section of the community but, as that has been done, I ask that girls who marry men domiciled in this country shall in no wise be at less advantage than girls who marry men domiciled overseas. As the Committee, I believe very wrongly, has seen fit to sweep away the three years' Clause for one section of the community, I ask it to do the same for all marriages covered by the period covered by the Bill. I believe that will be more in conformity with a normal sense of justice and it will at least prevent a large number of the anomalies which the Bill already creates.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth

All the arguments that I have already addressed to the Committee could be brought forward again in support of this Amendment. I was totally unimpressed by the case made by the Attorney-General for creating this distinction. We are being told on the one hand that there is a crying need for the Bill because there are so many hard cases of 20,000 girls who have already married men from the Dominions and, as soon as we attack the Government for creating these fresh anomalies, we are told that most marriages are very happy, even in cases where an English woman is married to a man domiciled out of the country, and that the Bill is only necessary to deal with exceptional cases. If that is so, why should we not make it fair for all and give precisely the same treatment to women who have married their own countrymen? That seems to me to be the whole case for the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie

I support the Amendment with some diffidence, because we have not this period in Scotland. As a matter of fact our divorce laws are much more progressive and, though Scotland is mainly a religious country, it is not so priest-ridden and we are not dictated to so much in that direction. The three years was put in in view of the possibility of reconciliation. I am not so keen on patched-up marriages but, be that as it may, the position is that you have at present, because of war conditions, young people away from home meeting strangers about whom they know very little and they rush into marriage in a way that they would not do in normal circumstances. In normal times, before a woman gets married she expects the man to provide a home. That takes a little time and it makes him feel that he has to face up to certain responsibilities.

In war time many people get married without any hope of a home. They are sometimes both in the Services, or the girl may be working, and they go into marriage without thinking seriously about it. They have not had an opportunity to get to know each other properly and to find out whether they can live their lives together. War conditions have made the position very different, even affecting girls who marry Englishmen. Therefore I ask the Attorney-General to consider this and, as he has introduced this alteration of the law to this extent for certain sections, to extend it and make it a war-time measure for all. All the arguments that have been put forward are on the side of the woman, but a colleague of mine once spoke of a case where a young man had married a girl whom he knew very little about and he discovered that she was immoral, and he was informed that he could not bring divorce proceedings for three years. So it cuts both ways. It is just as hard on the man, perhaps more so in some cases than on the woman. It seems to me that the Government might have been a little more courageous and dealt with the problem in a broader way.

Sir T. Moore

There are two objections that I see to the Clause as it stands. Many speakers have referred to the emotional crisis through which many young people pass to-day, but moral codes are weaker and standards of behaviour are lower. It is no reflection on the character of the nation as a whole but it means that we are passing through a very great crisis which affects adolescents, especially young girls. As the Clause stands, it is almost an encouragement to trial marriages. It is so easy to get out of them. There is a small section of young women who barge into marriage simply for the purpose of getting allowances.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)

This is not really a point where we can discuss the whole question of marriage. It is a narrow Committee point.

Sir T. Moore

I was merely seeking to elaborate arguments which have been used by preceding speakers, but I hope I have established my case in regard to these two vital objections to the Clause as it stands.

The Attorney-General

Both my hon. Friends who moved and supported this Amendment frankly told the Committee that it was their way of raising again the issue on which the Committee has just decided against them. I appreciate their frankness, and I hope that in the result, they will not press the Amendment to a Division and make the Committee re-record a decision it so recently recorded. I hope that I appreciate what my hon. Friends have in mind, although I disagree so fundamentally with them, but I am a little surprised at their moving this Amendment, because what would be the result? They propose to sweep away the three years' provision to which all my hon. Friends, I gather, attach importance, as I do, and which, at any rate, as part of the permanent structure, is applied to British marriages whether war-time or other time. It is really a wrecking Amendment. We got the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that it was a Bill to deal with the marriage of people from overseas. There have been 1,250,000 marriages since the war which have taken place under the 1937 Act, and I gather that in a large number of cases the effects of Clause 1 have been explained to the parties to the marriages by my hon. and gallant Friend—

Petty Officer Herbert

I am not supporting this Amendment.

The Attorney-General

I was just telling the Committee the circumstances in which the parties to these 1,250,000 marriages came to be married. They have taken place under the existing law, including the three years' bar. This Amendment would sweep that aside. For the 500,000 or so marriages which are, at present, subject to the three years' bar my hon. Friends would have that bar removed. I cannot think that my hon. Friends would really press the Committee to make a revolutionary change of that character in a Bill which has received a Second Reading on the basis that it is designed for a far more limited purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Petty Officer Herbert

Is it intended, Mr. Williams, to call my Amendments—in page 2, leave out 3 to 9; and, in line 5, after "together," insert "for not less than three years"?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, I am not selecting them.

Petty-Officer Herbert

Then I must say a few words on the Clause. There was a point which was mentioned on Second Reading and the Solicitor-General promised to consider it. I promised to consider it reciprocally, and I put down these Amendments more or less at his invitation. I must say it is rather hard—

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not for any hon. Member to dispute the Rulings of the Chair. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, he can discuss this point on the Question that the Clause stand part, which I have already proposed, but we cannot have a repetition of a discussion we have already had.

Petty-Officer Herbert

I was not disputing the Ruling of the Chair, but I say it is rather hard that Amendments which I put down, almost by arrangement with the Law Officers, should not now be called. I am not sure that I ought not to vote against the Clause. Perhaps I may express my immediate reasons for not liking it. The proviso at the top of page 2 seems to me to be inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the Bill. The Bill says that in these exceptional marriages, in the emotional atmosphere of which we have heard, we should abandon all the ancient rules of domicile that judges have built up over decades and which have become part of the historical legal apparatus of England. We throw them away so long as the parties remain in England. If, however, a girl, having married one of these curious foreigners who come over and fight for us, goes to the land of his domicile and lives there, if only for one day, she loses the benefits of this Bill and all the old mumbo-jumbo of domicile applies to her. I quite agree, and I think the Attorney-General will agree, that there are two different kinds of cases. If the wife goes as she should do, to America or Canada or Australia, and says, "I am going to try and see this thing through and make my marriage a success in a strange country," there is something to be said for the view that she has submitted herself to the laws of America, or of Canada, or Australia, and it is fair for her to be governed by the matrimonial laws of those countries.

But suppose she is married to a Newfoundlander or a citizen of Eire, where there is no divorce. She goes, meaning to make the marriage work, but there is, say, cruelty, adultery, incest and every sort of matrimonial offence, and she is cut out of this Bill for ever. She cannot be divorced in Newfoundland or Eire, and because of this proviso she cannot resume her domicile in England and get a divorce. That is a great hardship and wholly contrary to the spirit of the Bill. And there is this further point. The girl who stays at home and does not really mean to take the marriage seriously, gets the benefit of the Bill and can get a quick divorce. But the girl who makes an effort and goes out to her husband's country is penalised. Although I would never dream, even in nightmares, of disputing the Rulings of the Chair, I shall always, looking back on my political history, regard it as a misfortune that my Amendments were not called.

Mrs. Tate

I also regret that it has not been possible to discuss these Amendments. We have just had the case of a girl who marries a man domiciled abroad and who is at an advantage compared with her more unfortunate sister who marries a man domiciled in her own country. We are now going to have the case of a girl who attempts to make a success of her marriage and joins her husband in the country of his habitation, to make a home there and fulfil her marriage vows, and who is to be penalised as against her sister who entered lightly into marriage and never intended to follow her husband overseas and make a home there. This is, indeed, carrying the absurdity of the Bill beyond anything that anyone can justify. Nothing could justify the passing of the Clause in its present form and I hope that the Committee, in the interests of justice and morality, will reject it.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

Inevitably in a Debate like this we must go over the same ground that successive speakers have covered. I ask the Attorney-General to consider seriously what has been said by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. We should not say to a woman who is willing to spend the little money she has to go across the seas and try to make a go of her marriage even if at the end of a month or six weeks she sees that it is hopeless, that she must give up the rights of immediate divorce which are retained by another woman who makes no attempt to make her marriage a go. I do not think the Government should ask us to pass a Clause like that. Would it not be possible for the Attorney-General, between now and the Report stage, to consider whether it can be changed, even if the time is limited? In any case, we should not take away the rights of a woman because she tries to fulfil her marriage vows.

4.30 p.m.

Sir T. Moore

Like other hon. Members I feel that I must register my protest at the Attorney-General's seeking to get this Clause through without Amendment. Let hon. Members consider an ordinary case, one of many thousands taking place at the present time. A young girl, who has obviously seen very little of her husband abroad, whom she married largely influenced by emotion, is determined to carry her marriage through. With great courage, therefore, she goes to a strange new country among strange new people. Service conditions have prevented her seeing her husband very often, but now she suddenly finds herself in that strange country with a complete stranger, a man with many qualities of body and mind that horrify her and make any continuance of the marriage impossible. Because of her determination to try to make something of her marriage, to justify the reckless step she originally took, is she to be condemned for all time? I cannot believe that the Attorney-General would seek to get the Committee to accept the Clause without Amendment.

Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)

I have listened to the Debate on the Amendment with very great interest and I followed the Debate upon the previous Amendments. I agree with nearly everything that has been said by the critics of the Bill and against the Clause, but I am inclined to think their remarks point to a different conclusion from that which they have reached. They would really like bit by bit to destroy the Bill. but the whole discussion shows me that although the Bill is such a bad one it removes a certain number of hard cases and anomalies. I am, therefore, inclined to vote for it, not only because it deals with those bad cases, but also because it will create a position so intolerable and so bristling with absurdities and anomalies that the Government will have no choice later but to introduce a new Bill. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the Bill and force the Government into that position. If any hon. Member wants to know the reason why I regard the Bill as bad I can only say that they should read the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), as it brings out the absurdities completely. The whole Bill bristles with them.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

I agree that there are absurdities in the Bill, but it is also true that 99 per cent. of the cases with which it is designed to deal will be met. All the absurdities arise in the main from exceptional cases. The real problem is created by people in this country marrying soldiers who are domiciled overseas. The woman, by doing so, acquires overseas domicile. If the man goes abroad and sets up housekeeping with somebody else, the wife, because she is legally domiciled in the other country, cannot sue here for divorce. What the Bill does is to open the courts of this country to those women. I read the letter of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) at breakfast, propped up in front of my coffee, but that letter does not alter the fact that the Bill, though it is timid in certain respects, will deal with 99 per cent. of the cases with which it is designed to deal.

Mr. Beverly Baxter

On a point of Order. Are we not discussing Clause 1, Mr. Williams? The hon. Member is talking about the whole Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman

I agree that there is substance in the point of Order, and I think that the hon. Member who was addressing the Committee should finish with that point. There has been a great deal of latitude allowed in this discussion, but the hon. Member has mentioned the word "Bill." I hope that that argument will not be taken any further.

Sir H. Williams

Perhaps if the hon. Member who raised the point of Order, and for whom I have the greatest respect, had read Clause 1 he would have seen that my remarks were relevant to it. Clause 1 (1) states: In the case of marriages to which this Section applies— (a) the High Court in England shall have jurisdiction in and in relation to proceedings for divorce or for nullity of marriage as if both parties were at all material times domiciled in England. My remarks were devoted to that Subsection, which is the essential core of the Bill.

The Attorney-General

I agree that the points which have been raised on this question are different from those which we discussed upon the last Amendment. Possibly they might have been raised under an earlier Amendment, which covered the whole of the Sub-section, but I am certainly prepared to deal with them now. I am afraid I disagree with almost everything that was said by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), but I am glad to have her support, by whatever devious and I think mistaken route she has arrived at that decision. I also read at breakfast time the hon. and gallant Member's letter which deals with the Clause and which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). There are one or two mistakes in it. I think the grammar is all right. It illustrates the fact that the hon. and gallant Member and those associated with him approach the problem in a way which is rather different from the approach of myself and a good many hon. Members. I believe there is a good deal to be said for this general principle: Where two people, a man and a woman, agree to marry, and go abroad, it is right that the marriage should be governed by the law of the place where they intend to live.

Mrs. Tate

No.

The Attorney-General

Exactly. That, I think, throws considerable light on the last sentence of my hon. and gallant Friend's letter, in which he says that he is quite sure that a permanent Bill on the lines which he suggests would be non-controversial. He is quite wrong, because he would find himself in controversy with me at once.

Petty Officer Herbert

What I wrote was "Controversial, politically," in the party political sense.

The Attorney-General

But those are the most difficult Bills of all to get through the House of Commons. One cannot rely upon the Whips or upon those who are not with us at the moment. My hon. and gallant Friend would agree that his own Measure was a standing example of a Bill which did not arouse political controversy but it took very long, and yet he blames Parliament and the Government for not having dealt with divorce, as, he said, it raises controversies which cut across political parties. There is a principle raised. I think the right principle is that where two parties agree to marry the proper law is the law of the place where they intend to have their home. If, for example, I intended to marry and to live in a Catholic country, I should not object to being subjected to those laws, even though I was not a Catholic. If I were engaged to somebody living in a State where you can divorce by putting a penny in the slot, you realise that those are the circumstances, and that that is the law which governs your marriage.

Sir T. Moore

Does the Attorney-General expect a girl who marries a Catholic to know that there is no divorce law in Eire?

The Attorney-General

I was saying what I think is right in principle. Happily, when one gets married one is not contemplating divorce. We say that where the marriage is broken up and one party is domiciled abroad, before they have gone back to the country of domicile and intended home, we take jurisdiction, but that if they have gone back the ordinary rule should apply and only the courts of that country should have jurisdiction, applying the laws of that country. They may be much easier than ours or they may be much more strict. I have thought about this question since my hon. and learned Friend gave the undertaking. I think that if we were dealing with a time when couples could go for short holidays here, there and everywhere, there might have been a great deal of force in trying to get in some sort of code which could cut out, say, a week-end in Newfoundland or a casual short holiday in the United States. But these things are really not practicable in the present circumstances. If, after the war, they go back to the country of the man's home, it is almost certain they will be going back to take up their married life there.

I hope my hon. Friends will not vote against the Clause. I believe it does a great many things they want done. I believe that the anomalies have been greatly exaggerated, and on this question of residence I think one can really safely leave the Bill as it is, because I do not think there will be these casual visits which, I agree, one ought to meet if they were likely. But once we try to introduce a code we shall be in difficulties. Are we going to say three months, six months, or what? If we are going to try and base it on the intention of the parties when they go there, it would complicate the Measure and give another question to be argued about, another troublesome question as to jurisdiction. If we are to take simply a flat time such as six months, I believe we shall be in further difficulties. Suppose the two parties go together to a State of America, or wherever it may be, the marriage is obviously not broken up, because the condition is they must have resided together.

Mr. Baxter

My right hon. and learned Friend keeps on saying "If they go together." He is stating something that will not happen. Overseas soldiers do not take their wives with them on transports. They do not go together.

The Attorney-General

Unless they reside together the Sub-section which is objected to does not apply to them. That is exactly the point I am making. My hon. Friend has not followed the discussion, if he will allow me to say so.

Mr. Baxter

Yes, I have.

The Attorney-General

Then I cannot understand why my hon. Friend interrupted.

Mr. Baxter

What I really meant was that the tragedy which will come from this relates to foreign soldiers who marry here, go to the battlefields and never come back again; they return to their own countries in Europe or go overseas, to the Dominions or America, and never get back here to the girl they marry. We are trying to deal with the case of the girl who goes out and tries to make her mar- riage a success. The Attorney-General seems to ignore that as being the exception, whereas it will be the rule.

The Attorney-General

I really cannot think that after a soldier has gone away and deserted his wife, and the various sorts of things we have heard of have happened, she will cross the seas, unless he is ready to welcome her and set up house with her, and is ready to live with her. If one starts legislating for cases as unlikely as that our Bills will become of a length which will arouse even more the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

If I may pick up my argument about the difficulty about a six months' residence, let us take a case where the parties live together, and let us assume that residence together starts in the country of the husband's domicile, and all appears to be as happy as a marriage bell. Then it afterwards breaks up. If that happens the marriage will normally break up in that country. In nine cases out of ten, that being their home, the divorce laws of that country will apply. [An HON. MEMBER: "If any."] I know; that is where we differ. If a marriage is arranged and the intended home is in a country where divorce laws are stricter than ours, I think it is right that those laws should apply.

4.45 p.m.

Petty Officer Herbert

The point I tried to make is that the Bill is based on marriages made in an exceptional emotional atmosphere—the uniforms and so on—and for these exceptional marriages you do an exceptional thing, and give up the rule of domicile. But when you get to this proviso, you put back all the domicile business. Why not keep the same principle for all these exceptional cases?

The Attorney-General

I think it is quite plain. We say that in the exceptional circumstances, if the marriage breaks up before they go back to the country of domicile, we take jurisdiction; but not if they go back to the country of domicile. We do not think we should alter the general law. Let me put it the other way round. I think we have to consider this from the point of view of what we should recognise in foreign countries. If an Englishman brings home his wife, and they set up their home here, although the marriage was in some other part of the world, we should regard that marriage as subject to our laws, and should not be very ready to accept a divorce if the wife went back to the place of marriage, took proceedings and got a divorce simply because the marriage was originally contracted there. I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's point. I have thought about it, but I believe in all the circumstances it will not be a hardship to stick to residence. I think that to introduce a code would be to create more anomalies than would be removed. I hope my hon. Friends will not press the opposition to the Clause.

Mrs. Tate

With all due respect to the Attorney-General, he made one exceedingly important statement which really gets right to the bottom of this Bill. He said that if a couple marry and go to another country we consider that to be the country which they consider to be their home. It is nothing of the sort; it is the country which the man considers to be his home under this Bill. Take the case of an English girl who marries during the war a man from Southern Ireland, who has up to date been domiciled here. He hears of work in Southern Ireland, and instead of coming back to this country after his military service, he goes direct to Southern Ireland. The girl, because she is married to him, because she wants to make her marriage a success, goes to Southern Ireland. It is all very well to talk of the difficulties of crossing the sea, but it will not be very difficult to get to Southern Ireland for five years after the war. Because she has gone to Southern Ireland to try to attempt to make her marriage a reality, that girl, if she finds when she gets there that the man has committed adultery, is cruel, is incestuous, anything you like, is forever debarred from seeking her freedom because she has gone there, even if it is only for one day.

Sir H. Williams

He was domiciled here, according to the hon. Lady's thesis.

Mrs. Tate

I have stated that this man has domiciled himself in Southern Ireland. When his domicile becomes Southern Ireland his wife becomes domiciled there. Although she may never have been there she is subject to the laws of the country. The Attorney-General asks if it would not be difficult if a certain period of time was fixed, and says that we should not like it at all if a man from the Dominions came here, settled here and lived here, and got a divorce in another country. Surely the Attorney-General must be as well aware as I am that if a couple come here from New Zealand, live here, and the marriage fails, and the wife goes back to New Zealand, and is domiciled there for three years, she can, under the laws of New Zealand, then call that Dominion her home and divorce her husband under the laws of New Zealand.

That is what is fair and just. If we enabled a girl to say, "This is my home; this is where I intend to live; I demand the protection of the laws of my own country after three years' residence," there would be justice. Under this Clause, it is the woman who tries to make a success of her marriage, who is foolish enough, in order to try to mend a marriage which is likely to break up, to reside in the country of her husband's domicile, even for one day, who is doomed, if there is no divorce law in that country, never to get her freedom. If an attempt to make marriage a success is to be a reason for preventing a woman from ever getting her freedom, that is something to be deplored. I implore the Committee, if they are interested in progress, to reject this Clause.

Sir H. Williams

May I point out that if we do not pass this Clause the woman is still doomed? Under the Clause 99 per cent. will get their freedom, but if the Clause is rejected they are all doomed.

Mrs. Tate

I cannot agree to anything because it would enable a small proportion to get their rights. I want justice, and there certainly is not justice in this Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.