§ Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd May], That the Clause (Voluntary restriction of divorce), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.
§ (1) This section shall apply if before or after marriage the parties thereto have agreed in writing that their marriage shall be a lifelong union dissoluble only by death;
§ Provided that no particular form of words shall be required for such agreement.
§ (2) Where a respondent satisfies the court that he and the petitioner have entered into such an agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section then the court shall not grant a decree of divorce, but shall, if satisfied of the existence of any such fact as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act, and if so requested by the petitioner, grant a decree of judicial separation.—[Mr. Bruce Campbell.]
§ Question again proposed.
§ 1.5 a.m.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)I call Mr. Abse.
§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate was adjourned, I had the Floor.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe record I have indicates that another hon. Member had the Floor and did not now seek to speak further.
§ Mr. DelargyFurther to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consult HANSARD to see who is there shown as having the Floor?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have referred to HANSARD, and my reply to the hon. Gentleman gave what HANSARD discloses.
§ Mr. Alec Jones (Rhondda, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I be of assistance? HANSARD of 9th May indicates that my hon. Friend did have the Floor.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sorry. May I apologise. I inadvertently referred to the wrong HANSARD. I referred to HANSARD of 2nd May.
§ Mr. DelargyI am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not intend to indulge in any filibustering tonight. I am not saying that filibusters are not sometimes useful, but I cannot see any use in filibustering at the beginning of a debate that might last three days and three nights. It could.
Since it is now five weeks today since we last looked at the new Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), may I remind the House briefly of what it was about. It says—I paraphrase the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal words—that when the parties to the marriage have agreed in writing that their marriage shall be a lifelong union, dissoluble only by death a divorce shall not be granted, but that in certain circumstances they could be granted a decree of judicial separation.
One of the interesting and curious things about the Clause is that the supporters and opponents alike are using the same arguments to arrive at their different conclusions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West argued like this: the Clause will introduce two kinds of marriage. This would be an excellent 1854 thing. Therefore, it should be added to the Bill. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), who is the promoter of the Bill, argued like this: the Clause will introduce two kinds of marriage. This would be a disastrous thing. Therefore, it should be kept out of the Bill. This is all very disconcerting to a simple soul like me.
But there are other curious features about the Bill. Persons who normally share the same viewpoint have opposite views about the effects of the Clause. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) said:
The ovehwhelming majority of people would find the Clause eminently reasonable.".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 9th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 932.]The overwhelming majority of the people? I am not so sure about that. Another hon. Member a week previously had said:…I have misgivings about what the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) has said.Later he said:Should such a Clause…be enshrined in our law?…I doubt it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1839–40.]Who was the hon. Gentleman who made the second statement? He was none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). Here we have a Clause designed to keep the spouses together and already it is driving loving brothers apart. It is a most peculiar Clause.What is really behind it? Its mover said that there will be an elite class of married people, the sort of married people who have not only gone through a marriage ceremony but have also entered into this little agreement so that they can tell their friends, "We belong to this rather better class of married people, the sort of married people who regard marriage as a serious, life-long business, not a temporary partnership that one can enter into every few years."
I do not like this very much. It sounds very much like the prayer of the Pharisee who gave thanks that he was not as bad as other men. If this was all that there was behind the Clause it would not be worth considering. But there are other reasons behind it. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). He said that 1855
we must address our minds to whether it was possible to distinguish between those people who wish to hold on to their marriage for religious reasons, and those who have not the same feelings and are perhaps holding on for wholly irreligious reasons".That would be a better reason for moving the new Clause than that mentioned. I do not think I would be in order in discussing that aspect of it on this new Clause, because in a later Amendment which has some sort of religious aspect to it I hope, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a word or two. There could be another reason behind the new Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) is very interested in contracts and so am I. Marriage is a contract. In the opinion of most people in this country it is a purely civil contract. It is a contract which, over the years, has grown less and less binding and if this Bill becomes law it will be less binding than ever. The contract will well-nigh have disappeared altogether. Until now a contract has been held to be binding when both parties to it fulfilled the conditions and observed the terms of it. Only when one party refused to fulfil his or her obligations had the other party the right to seek to terminate the contract. Under this Bill all that would be changed.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the new Clause and not discuss the Bill in general.
§ Mr. DelargyI was trying not to discuss the Bill in general. I was trying to find out the reason for introducing this new Clause. One reason is that the people who support it say that this invalidity of contract is wrong, and I agree. They think that we must do something, however small, covering some people, however few, who wish to keep the contract going. I understand that, I have sympathy with these people. I do not think that this is the way to do it. I cannot see that writing this little marriage contract between themselves will make the contract any more binding.
Because all the reasons adduced as to why we should have this new Clause are invalid I say, with some reluctance, 1856 that I cannot support it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones). I suppose that I will agree with him less and less as the night wears on.
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)Being absent from home on a Friday is hardly likely to enhance my own matrimonial prospects. It would be a curious comment on the antics of the Government tonight if the divorce lists were swollen during the next few months by the names of Members of this House. Strange as it may seem to certain hon. Members opposite, many people are greatly alarmed at the low standards of behaviour today and the growth of what people believe to be an unduly permissive society. Such people may be powerless to do anything about these trends except to say, "We at least will try to live by higher standards than those now prevailing. Of course, we may fail but we shall try our best, and in order to try to ensure that we will not fall by the wayside, we are prepared to say now that we will never ask for an easy way out and will never go to court and ask for a divorce."
If people want to say that, why on earth should they not be allowed to do so? That is my interpretation of the purpose of the Clause and why I support it. I cannot see how, by acceptance of the new Clause, the interests of the individual would be prejudiced in any way.
Let us consider the situation of the deserted wife or the wife compelled to leave the home because of the cruelty of the husband. She, under the terms of the new Clause, would be able to get a decree of judicial separation and, simply because her husband would not be able to marry again and to that extent would be less likely to start another family, she and her family would be more secure than they will be if the Bill is passed unamended.
The sponsors talk much about the social consequences and the necessity of these changes. Even if it is true that the husband may fall by the wayside and live in sin, and that there may be children who, as a result of the tightening up of the law, would not be legitimated as a result of a subsequent marriage, far too much emphasis in these debates has 1857 been placed on the supposed sufferings of the children of illicit unions and too little on the rights of the legitimate children. This is the old case of bad cases making bad law and we should pay more attention to the interests of the children of the family, who have a vested interest in the marriage not breaking up—including a financial interest—and in their father not starting another family.
In any event, the right way to look after illegitimate children is to remove some of the disabilities under which they suffer and this is being done in other legislation before Parliament. I am thinking particularly of the Family Law Reform Bill, shortly to come back for Report stage.
§ Mr. Alec JonesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is what the hon. Gentleman is saying linked to the new Clause?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) is making one or two incidental references to other Bills, but he is in order.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I was departing from the new Clause. I am opposed to the Bill in principle and least of all do I like the provision which enables a husband to put aside his wife after five years even if she is entirely innocent, and if the sponsors of the Bill had been less intransigent and had been more willing to listen to other people's arguments and had abandoned that part of the Bill over which controversy has raged—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not stray as wide as he is now doing.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI realise that, Sir, and I will quickly come to a conclusion.
I heartily commend the new Clause. Those who feel that we have gone too far by making divorce easy are entitled to say that we should accept some discipline. They are entitled to say that one enters into a union in the belief that it must be a lifelong union and in the realisation that, if a marriage is unhappy, they should not go to the courts to ask for the marriage to be dissolved. They should be allowed to enter into a contract if they wish to do so.
§ Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)Although in the heat of debate hon. Members may make attributions to each other of sinister motives, I believe that all of us engaged in the debate, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington)—a debate which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had to endure for nearly three hours—have one common aim. We all wish to enhance the institution of marriage, encourage family stability, and protect those likely to suffer as a consequence of marriage breakdown.
Whatever may be the good intentions of those supporting the Bill, the Clause in no way buttresses any of these objectives. On the contrary, the Clause would undermine it. When a marriage ceremony takes place the rôle of the legislature should be to create a marriage law which adds to, rather than detracts from, the social pressure upon the celebrants to understand the permanence of the relationship.
It would be cynical for the House to shape a second-class ceremony, as would result from this Clause. The Clause would bring into effect a ceremony deliberately designed to enable brides and bridegrooms, at the very commencement of a marriage, to opt out of any permanent commitment. Such a concept is shockingly anti-romantic.
It may be that the iron has entered into the souls of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have proposed the Clause. They may have lingered too long in the corridors of the divorce courts. The story does not always end by living happily ever after, but surely it is good and healthy. That is what we want to believe and to hope. To accept without demur—indeed the Clause would deliberately institutionalise—the celebration of marriages declared publicly to belong to a temporary character, as an idea coming from the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), is far too avant-garde for me, even if such new-fangled ideas appeal to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black).
Nor can I accept a Clause which could result in considerable inhumanity to deceived women. Should a woman who has married an irresponsible husband, who lightly signs a piece of paper making his marriage irrevocable, be for ever compelled, at his option, to be bound to 1859 his debauchery and cruelty? Again, should a woman, whose drunken husband is brutal to her children as well as to her, because of a piece of paper signed by him some years before, not have the opportunity, unless the brute so wished, to make a new life with a new husband and a new father for her children?
The hon. Ladies the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forfeit any claim to be champions of women's rights if they persist
§ in their support of the Clause. They have not really thought through the Clause. After three hours of debate, I trust that the House will now come to a conclusion.
§ Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 58.
1861| Division No. 253.] | AYES | [1.24 a.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Hamling, William | Norwood, Christopher |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Oakes, Gordon |
| Archer, Peter | Haseldine, Norman | Ogden, Eric |
| Ashley, Jack | Hattersley, Roy | Oram, Albert E. |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Hay, John | Orbach, Maurice |
| Astor, John | Hobden, Dennis | Orme, Stanley |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Hooley, Frank | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Awdry, Daniel | Hooson, Emlyn | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Barnes, Michael | Hornby, Richard | Paget, R. T. |
| Barnett, Joel | Horner, John | Palmer, Arthur |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Howie, W. | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Huckfield, Leslie | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Booth, Albert | Hunt, John | Rees, Merlyn |
| Boston, Terence | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Richard, Ivor |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Brooks, Edwin | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Roebuck, Roy |
| Cant, R. B. | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Rowlands, E. |
| Concannon, J. D. | Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Judd, Frank | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Kenyon, Clifford | Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) |
| Crouch, David | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Silverman, Julius |
| Dewar, Donald | Lipton, Marcus | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Loughlin, Charles | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Dickens, James | Luard, Evan | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dobson, Ray | Lubbock, Eric | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | MacDermot, Niall | Tapsell, Peter |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Macdonald, A. H. | Taverne, Dick |
| Ellis, John | Mackie, John | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George |
| Emery, Peter | Maclennan, Robert | Tinn, James |
| English, Michael | Marks, Kenneth | Varley, Eric G. |
| Ennals, David | ||
| Fernyhough, E. | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Fisher, Nigel | Mayhew, Christopher | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Mendelson, John | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Mikardo, Ian | Whitaker, Ben |
| Forrester, John | Millan, Bruce | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Molloy, William | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Freeson, Reginald | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Winnick, David |
| Garrett, W. E. | Morris, John (Aberavon) | |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Murray, Albert | Mr. Peter M. Jackson and |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Newens, Stan | Mr. Christopher Price. |
| NOES | ||
| Alldritt, Walter | Clegg, Walter | Grant-Ferris, R. |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Corfield, F. V. | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) |
| Biffen, John | Delargy, Hugh | Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Farr, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Fortescue, Tim | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Body, Richard | Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Goodhart, Philip | Harvie Anderson, Miss |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Goodhew, Victor | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel |
| Hiley, Joseph | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hill, J. E. B. | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Tilney, John |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Waddington, David |
| Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Percival, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Kimball, Marcus | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Woof, Robert |
| Knight, Mrs. Jill | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Wright, Esmond |
| Lee, John (Reading) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Russell, Sir Ronald | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Longden, Gilbert | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Mr. Peter Kirk and |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Silvester, Frederick | Mr. John Biggs-Davison. |
| Maddan, Martin | Small, William |
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Question is, That the Clause be read a Second—
§ Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must put the Question first.
§ Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 149.
1863| Division No. 254.] | AYES | [1.34 a.m. |
| Alldritt, Walter | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Biffen, John | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Tilney, John |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Waddington, David |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Woof, Robert |
| Farr, John | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Wright, Esmond |
| Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | |
| Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Mr. Peter Kirk and |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Mr. John Biggs-Davison. |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Russell, Sir Ronald | |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Fernyhough, E. | Kimball, Marcus |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fisher, Nigel | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Archer, Peter | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Ashley, Jack | Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Astor, John | Forrester, John | Loughlin, Charles |
| Atkinson, Normar (Tottenham) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Luard, Evan |
| Awdry, Daniel | Freeson, Reginald | Lubbock, Eric |
| Barnes, Michael | Garrett, W. E. | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Barnett, Joel | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | MacDermot, Niall |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Goodhart, Philip | Macdonald, A. H. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Mackie, John |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Body, Richard | Hamling, William | Marks, Kenneth |
| Booth, Albert | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Boston, Terence | Haseldine, Norman | Mayhew, Christopher |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Hattersley, Roy | Mendelson, John |
| Brooks, Edwin | Hay, John | Mikardo, Ian |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Millan, Bruce | |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Hiley, Joseph | Molloy, William |
| Cant, R. B. | Hobden, Dennis | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Clegg, Walter | Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin | Morris, John (Aberavon) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Hooley, Frank | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Hooson, Emlyn | Murray, Albert |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Horner, John | Newens, Stan |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Norwood, Christopher |
| Crouch, David | Howie, W. | Oakes, Gordon |
| Huckfield, Leslie | Ogden, Eric | |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hunt, John | Oram, Atbert E. |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Orbach, Maurice |
| Dewar, Donald | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Orme, Stanley |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Dickens, James | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Dobson, Ray | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Paget, R. T. |
| Dunnett, Jack | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Ellis, John | Judd, Frank | Rees, Merlyn |
| Emery, Peter | Kenyon, Clifford | Richard, Ivor |
| English, Michael | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Ennals, David | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Sinclair, Sir George | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Roebuck, Roy | Skeffington, Arthur | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Rowlands, E. | Spriggs, Leslie | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Scott, Nicholas | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John | Whitaker, Ben |
| Sheldon, Robert | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) | Tapsell, Peter | Winnick, David |
| Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) | Taverne, Dick | |
| Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Tinn, James | Mr. Peter M. Jackson and |
| Silverman, Julius | Varley, Eric G. | Mr. Christopher Price. |
| Silvester, Frederick | Vickers, Dame Joan |
- Clause 1
- BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE TO BE SOLE GROUND FOR DIVORCE 12,038 words, 2 divisions
- Clause 2
- PROOF OF BREAKDOWN 33,172 words, 6 divisions
- Clause 3
- PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE RECONCILIATION 3,560 words
- Clause 4
- DECREE MAY BE REFUSED IF DIVORCE WOULD RESULT IN GRAVE FINANCIAL OR OTHER HARDSHIP TO RESPONDENT 14 words
- Clause 6
- FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR RESPONDENT IN CERTAIN CASES 31,975 words, 6 divisions
-
cc1863-94
-
cc1895-981
-
cc1981-90
-
c1990
-
cc1990-2073