§ 46. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the decision in the case of Baxter v. Baxter, he proposes to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)No, Sir. The Government do not intend to introduce legislation as a result of the decision to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonIs my right hon. Friend aware that the law, as it now defines the consummation of marriage, is regarded by many people as pernicious and contrary to public policy, and will he ask the Leader of the House to provide an opportunity for discussing this matter at an early date?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThis matter raises difficult and controversial social issues, but I think that the effect of the decision in the case of Baxter v. Baxter has, to some extent, been misunderstood. The case did not decide that one of the parties to a marriage was entitled to refuse marital relations unless contraceptives were used, nor did it decide that in such a case where relations were so refused the other party would be without remedy. The decision was simply that where marital relations have taken place, the use of contraceptives, whether with or without the consent of both parties, did not prevent the marriage being consummated within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act. Beyond that, one can only say that this is one of the fields of intimate human relationship which cannot, in our view, properly be dealt with by legislation.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonIs the effect of this decision that the matter will have to be decided by subsequent litigation rather than by legislation?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt is possible that, in the circumstances of some particular case, the courts may have to decide 654 what may be the effect of the use of contraceptives against the wish of one of the spouses. We think it had better be left to the courts to decide in the circumstances of a particular case.