HL Deb 28 February 1929 vol 72 cc1203-19

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, made by Lord Buckmaster last Thursday, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

LORD DARLING

My Lords, since the debate stood adjourned, I have somewhat altered, and I hope improved, the Amendments which I then had on the Paper. With your Lordships' permission I will, before actually moving the Amendments, explain the position in which, as I understand it, the law at present is, and how it would be altered, as I think for the worse, by the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am not quite sure—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I rather think he has already addressed your Lordships on this Motion. I make this observation in the interests of order all the more readily because I think the observations the noble Lord is about to address to us would be quite as relevant when we do get into Committee as now.

LORD DARLING

I beg your Lordships' pardon. I did not notice the form, of the Question. I had assumed that the House was in Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Avoidance of marriages where either party is under sixteen.

1.—(1) A marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen shall be void.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any marriage solemnized or contracted before the passing of this Act, and any such marriage shall be or become valid in any case where if this Act had not been passed it would be or become valid.

LORD DARLING had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "void" and insert "voidable by either party to the marriage on an application made to the Court in accordance with Rules of Court before both parties to the marriage reach the age of sixteen." The noble Lord said: I will not repeat what I said when I was out of order, but will assume your Lordships remember it. I would, therefore, proceed to explain what I understand would be the change which would be made in the law by this Bill. I think it would do what I conceive the noble and learned Lord himself, if he considered a little further, would not desire to do. I should like to say at once that I am absolutely in agreement with him as to the propriety, and indeed the necessity, of raising to sixteen the age at which marriage is permitted. At present the age at which marriage is permitted by the law of England is fourteen for a male and twelve for a female. It has long been at that point, and I think the noble and learned Lord is perfectly justified in moving to raise the age to sixteen. Where I differ is when we come to the words of his Bill, because he would enact that "a marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen"—there I agree—"shall be void." I would put "voidable" instead of "void" for reasons which I will give.

If your Lordships would forgive me I would read what is now the law as it is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, an authority of a great many years standing. Many of your Lordships will remember the late Lord Halsbury very well, and you would not desire words of higher authority, I am sure. He stated what I have said about the ages and goes on:— A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only voidable by either party, on the person under age reaching the age of consent. If the girl was under twelve either party may disaffirm the marriage on her attaining that age, and, similarly, in the case of a boy under fourteen, if, at the age of consent, the marriage is affirmed by the parties, it becomes a valid marriage, and cannot afterwards be questioned by either, and cohabitation after the age of consent amounts to an affirmation of the contract. I propose nothing revolutionary. I would only desire to leave the law of England as it is, except that I would agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite in raising to the age of consent the age at which a person may contract a marriage—namely, sixteen.

See the consequences if the Bill is passed in the shape in which the noble and learned Lord presents it to your Lordships. I know him so well—I have noticed his predilections in other matters—that I doubt whether he really did draw this Bill. It seems to me that it has about it a touch of want of consideration for the feelings of others which I never suspect in the noble and learned Lord. Even when they are not human beings he is incapable of neglecting their feelings. What would happen? I am assuming your Lordships have raised the age to sixteen. Let us start from that. Under the law as it would then stand, if people under the age of sixteen—or if either was under the age of sixteen—contracted a marriage and children were born, as often happens, those children would be bastards. They would be born illegitimate and how are they ever to be legitimated? The most the woman could do would be to take out, if the time had not gone by, a summons and get an affiliation order. But the children—there might be more than one—would be under all the disabilities of children illegitimately born. Actual and sentimental disadvantages would attach to them, and these would continue always unless their parents were to get married.

In the most harrowing case which the noble and learned Lord brought before your Lordships' notice a week ago of course they would not marry. These people would not, but I dare say some would marry. Then the children would be legitimated in consequence of Statutes brought into this House by the noble and learned Lord himself. But if they did not marry, what would happen? The children would be like all other illegitimate children, although their parents had gone through a form of marriage, because that form of marriage would be worth nothing. It would have effected nothing.

But there are other disadvantages besides that. This man and woman, having been married and the marriage being void, might live together for many years as man and wife. The woman is entitled in these circumstances as the law stands to pledge her husband's credit for all things necessary for a woman in her situation. Suppose they live together, let us say for 20 years, though it would be true for any number of years, Suppose they had lived together as man and wife under this marriage which the noble and learned Lord would declare to be void, and the woman had gone on getting things on the assumption that she was a wife and people had been supplying her on the assumption that she was a wife, and the man then refused to pay for them, turned her out of doors, refused to give her a shilling or to pay for what she had had as absolute necessaries for her children, and the tradesman then sued. The man would simply say that they were never married, that he was not liable and was no more liable than his next-door neighbour. That would be a disadvantage which could not happen as the law stands but could happen if this Bill is passed as it was introduced into the House.

I have taken a case of civil law. Let me take now a case of criminal law. A husband and wife by the law of England are not competent witnesses against one another in criminal proceedings, except one of them complains of the other, as in a case of assault and battery or something of that kind. Suppose a case in which a man who has gone through a marriage like this is indicted for some offence—it may be for murder, it may be for obtaining money by false pretences. I venture to trouble your Lordships with this because I want to see how the Bill would work if it became an Act of Parliament. I should not like to have had a Bill like this passed when the noble Marquess opposite was Lord Chief Justice of England and to have had to help him to get out of the puzzle I am going to put.

Suppose a person is indicted for anything you choose and the first witness called for the prosecution is—let us call her Mrs. Brown. The moment she is called the prisoner says: "I object to this woman being called and giving evidence. She is my wife. She cannot give evidence against me." What is the magistrate or the Judge to do? The man produces a marriage certificate and he says: "Look there. That is the certificate. I married that woman." How is the Judge to get on? It is a good marriage unless she was under sixteen at the time it took place. How is the Court going to find out on the spot and at once whether the marriage took place when the woman was under sixteen or over sixteen? As far as I can see you could not ask her. In face of the Court she is the man's wife who must not give evidence against him, who is not competent to give evidence against him. How are you going to get on? For these reasons, although I thoroughly agree that the age should be raised to sixteen, I would ask your Lordships to consider gravely whether the word "void" should not be changed to "voidable."

You may very well say to me, what process would you have if it is to be voidable. I might say I will have the law just as it is. I have read a passage from an authoritative book showing how to get rid of marriages which are voidable. It is perfectly well known. But I go further. If I am in order I should like to move the Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. I have shown your Lordships from the authority that I have read that the marriage at present is voidable on the application of either party. That is the law of England as it stands. I think that here is an opportunity for improving the law in that respect, and if I may I would move the Amendment in this form, to leave out "void" and to insert "voidable by either party to the marriage who at the date thereof was under sixteen years of age." That would allow the marriage to be voided only by the aggrieved party and would keep it a good marriage as regards the person who was of age. I venture to move this Amendment for the reason that it seems to me that it would work a grave injustice if the word "void" remains, and I would move it in the way in which I have just indicated to your Lordships, if I may, because I think it would be an improvement on the law as it stands although it would alter it in a very slight particular.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out ("void") and insert ("voidable by either party to the marriage who at the date thereof was under sixteen years of age on an application made to the Court in accordance with Rules of Court").—(Lord Darling.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

An Amendment is moved on Page 1, line 7, to leave out "void" with the object of inserting the words as printed subject to an Amendment which I will put later. At present the Question is: That the word "void" stand part of the clause.

LORD BUCKMASTER

It is quite impossible for me to know what were the motives that moved each one of your Lordships when you gave assent to the Second Heading of this Bill. I can only know the motive that impelled me to its introduction, and I think your Lordships will see, when I tell you what that motive was, that it is wholly impossible for me to accept—I had almost said to consider seriously—the Amendment now on the Paper. What disturbed me when the facts were brought to my knowledge was this: Relations between a man and a girl under the age of sixteen constitute a grave criminal offence, and the reason is that the man has taken advantage of the girl's inexperience and immaturity, and the law regards that—and I am glad to think the law does so regard it—as a grievous wrong. It appeared to me something that could hardly bear to be stated, that what the law said was a thing for which a man might be sent to gaol for a long period of time, could be repeated with perfect immunity if the man could only get the wretched girl to consent to a marriage. I beg your Lordships to remember that this Bill does not, as the first form of the Amendment might suggest, only affect boys and girls under sixteen and fourteen years of age. It is a Bill which, in its most material aspects, will affect the marriage of men with girls under the age of sixteen, and as I have said, when you think for a moment that a man who commits this wrong against a girl can be sent to prison, there is something to my mind infinitely degrading in the thought that you can cover with the cloak of marriage what is nothing but a grave criminal offence.

That was the reason why I introduced the Bill, and it is perfectly plain that this Amendment does not touch that objection, and gets nowhere near it, because what it says is that these two people may enter into a marriage; and the younger may have an opportunity of declaring the marriage void. Can you imagine such a thing as that? In support of the doctrine the noble Lord, who appears to have engaged successfully in excavations of legal cemeteries, has exhumed certain mummies of the law as to what has happened between a girl of twelve and a boy of fourteen. No such effective marriage could ever have taken place, and yet it is in those circumstances that he asks you to accept this Amendment. I have, as I ought to have, respect for respectable legal doctrines, but for anything like that I have nothing but the most profound contempt, and if he tells me that my Bill is going to alter the law, I say that it has added a new advantage which I did not know it possessed, and which I am only too glad it should have.

If your Lordships are prepared to reconcile yourselves to this position, that a man may marry a girl and may under the cloak of marriage, commit against her what we all now accept as a definite wrong against the girl's immaturity, and against her inability to undertake the terrific responsibility of relations with a man, and that unless somebody comes and says the marriage is to be void, it is to be as binding as any other marriage—that is to destroy the whole foundation of this measure. If your Lordships, moved by other considerations than those which move me, take the view that you went too far when you gave me, as I thought, a cordial welcome when I introduced this Bill, then I regret it, but if you still retain the same opinion I hope you will unhesitatingly reject the Amendment.

LORD HANWORTH

I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord takes the view which he does of the Amendment. We all share the views that ho has expressed about the particular case which led to his introducing this measure. Everyone of us would desire to make such a wrong impossible. The question is whether or not the noble and learned Lord has chosen the best way of effecting his end. Let us put aside the horrible ease which he mentioned and take into cold consideration what his Bill would do. It is not impossible to suppose that a man of any age might with consent marry a girl less than sixteen years of age. It is not necessary in every case to suppose that a rape should have been committed. It is quite possible to suppose that a girl of fifteen has married a man of greater age. Some considerations may arise out of the relation. There may be a difference of opinion that may arise. Are you satisfied, without further consideration, that in such a case the marriage laws should be so altered that a marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen shall be void? Are you going to say that, in all cases of such marriages, which have taken place without criminal intent, without the horrible and nauseating details which belong to the particular case which has been mentioned—are you going so to alter the marriage laws that that shall be possible? For my part I think we are legislating in a great hurry. I do not think it is right, merely for the purpose of stopping a particular offence, to legislate and alter the whole of our marriage laws.

For my part I would like a great deal further consideration to be given to this sort of case, and I do not think it is at all fair to Lord Darling to say that he has been digging in cemeteries of the law. I have such respect for tradition that I prefer the law which has stood and lasted from generation to generation, and has proved to be sound, and has found its place constantly in repeated editions, because it is good law. A gibe like that is quite unworthy of the noble Lord who made it. These marriage laws, of course, are very old laws. It would be necessary to go back to the days before matters of marriage were handed over to the Courts as at present constituted, and to go back to the ecclesiastical law, to find what where the precursors of the laws as they now stand. As a matter of fact I am not at all satisfied that this clause as it at present stands ought to be passed, and I am still less satisfied that we are wise to pass it because of the appeal made by Lord Buckmaster. I should prefer grounds to be given quite independent of the morbid and horrible details. I should like to consider this question as to whether we are prepared to say that in any case where there has been consent, where there has been no violence, but where one of the parties is under sixteen years of age, that marriage is to be void. For my own part I am not prepared to say it, and therefore if the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall support Lord Darling, because I think we are legislating in a hurry and such legislation always proves to be bad.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I cannot but think that we are paying too much attention to possible dangers which can nearly always be suggested in these cases. I should have thought the arguments of my noble and learned friend who has just spoken should have been made on the Second Reading of the Bill. The principle of the Bill has been accepted. The only question now is this Amendment which is proposed by Lord Darling. I have every respect for the authority quoted by Lord Darling, but I do not understand why, because of that, we should not pass the Bill which is now before us. I gather from both noble Lords who have spoken from the other side that everybody will agree that something should be done to prevent the cloak of marriage being thrown over an act which is declared to be a crime and punishable under our law. I do not for a moment wish to argue as to why we said that the age of sixteen was to be the age of consent. It is obvious. Then why should there be a marriage? I do follow the argument that persons who have been married under the old law of marriage should not have their marriage made void because they have married under a condition of law under which, rightly or wrongly, such marriages were permitted. The Bill deals with that. It says in terms that it does not affect any marriage contracted before the passing of this legislation. We need not trouble ourselves with anything that is past. The law is left as Lord Darling stated and nothing we do to-day will interfere with it.

LORD DARLING

I did not in the least mean to say that. I said that the law would be left in the state that it will be voidable if my Amendment were passed. The law of marriage is voidable now and it would remain voidable if you changed "void" to "voidable."

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I do not think my noble friend understands the arguments I am putting to him. Of course I understood that. The law, as he has stated it, is perfectly good law as to what happens at the present day and nothing in the Bill is going to change the law as affecting marriages that happened before the passing of the new legislation. They remain voidable as has been stated. What we are proposing to do is to prevent a marriage of that kind taking place in future so far as we can do so by legislation. The proposition is that the marriage shall be void and not voidable as is suggested by the Amendment. Once it is stated that the law makes a marriage void there cannot be any hardship in the future. None of the difficulties that have been pointed out can arise because the law has declared that such a marriage is not a marriage. If you were proposing to change the law so as to affect the past then I could quite understand the difficulties that might be put, but none of them really exist when you have once stated that for the future all these marriages are void. All you can do then is to say whether it is a marriage with a person of the age at which marriages are legal.

It is a little difficult to understand what reason there is why we should be afraid to do this. After all, there are other countries as to which we very often make observations upon the relations between the sexes and especially upon the young and immature age at which women are allowed to marry. I do not want to discuss that. I am sure that your Lordships are very well aware of the agitation in this country and elsewhere in relation to marriages at these early ages in the East. Is our law to be continued? Are we to say that such a marriage is good? As I understand it, from what is proposed in the Amendment that marriage may be a good marriage. It is voidable only; it is not made void. I confess I cannot see any reason why we should not take this step to-day as affecting marriages from the date of the passing of this legislation and say, as we do every day, that henceforth a thing which hitherto was lawful or was voidable shall in future be void. No difficulty would occur. Any of the troubles that have been indicated by my noble and learned friend Lord Darling will all solve themselves. It is a much more difficult question if you put the word "voidable" in. I put, for example, the point of calling a wife in a criminal case. I do not want to discuss in detail what the law would be to-day in regard to the question, but the question whether there is a marriage or not is solved at once by the word "void." You do not solve it by the word "voidable." You leave the Court in the difficulty of having to say whether the marriage is to stand or not.

LORD DARLING

I have tried to point it out, but apparently I failed. It would not be void simply on the man producing a certificate which showed that the man and woman had married. It would only be void upon its appearing that the woman was under age. That would not appear on the certificate because they are always false. What I put was that you would, have to have a further inquiry to find out how old the woman was.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I understood all that, and it does not seem to change the position in the slightest degree. Of course, you can put difficulties of that kind as to what is to happen over a matter of age when the Court comes to decide. We are not afraid of them in practice, they always disappear in Court. The noble Lord is straining his ingenuity to try to show that they would trouble the Court. They certainly would not trouble the Court over which he presided in the days when I was Chief Justice. I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, which will impair the value of the Bill if it does not destroy its usefulness. It is a simple thing to say that we will not, from this day forward, countenance the marriage of a girl under the age of sixteen when we say that the Ordinary act with her under the age of sixteen is an offence and is a criminal offence, and that it shall not be made an innocent offence merely by marriage.

THE EARL OF DESART

I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not doubt that I, in common with most of the noble Lords who were present when he moved (he Second Reading of this Bill, was moved by the considerations he gave to-night. Speaking for myself, through my own fault it may be, I was listening to his advocacy of the Bill without having thought out what its effects would be on our marriage law. I still, of course, accept, as I suppose everyone would accept, that, both for physiological and moral reasons, anything more undesirable than the marriage of a girl under sixteen cannot be imagined. I am bound to say, however, that, even when the Second Reading was being discussed, it did occur to me that somebody might have thought about the child—always in divorce cases I think that the innocent children are those who deserve consideration—but I was not prepared at that time to say anything which should at all militate against your Lordships giving the Bill a Second Reading. I thought that I should have an opportunity in Committee of moving an Amendment which might have got rid of that, and also of other difficulties which had occurred to me. But, quite frankly, whim I came to look at it, I found that my ingenuity could not devise anything which would meet the points which I had in mind, and if I lay myself open to a rebuke from the noble Marquess that I am saying things which ought properly to have boon said on Second Reading, or that might be said on Third Reading, I think I may properly do it because at present, although I feel a great deal of difficulty about my noble and learned friend's Amendment, it would do something towards getting rid of the difficulty which I feel, though not going to the full extent that I desire.

What this Bill does, and what it is obviously intended to do, is this. I will take the case of a man who marries a girl under the age of sixteen. What it is intended to do is to say that a child has been begotten, and is either coming or has been born, but neither the parents of the child themselves, nor anybody, shall be able to regularise the connection that has already been formed. As a question of morality, of course, this Bill will not prevent those connections being formed, but what it will do, if it passes, is to leave the girl with an illegitimate child, and her character smirched, while the child is left finally and permanently illegitimate, except in circumstances very unlikely to arise, and nobody can do anything for them. What would be the position of the girl? Her character would be smirched. Her child would be illegitimate. She has no way whatever, even u everybody connected with the matter desired it, of putting it right, and the child is left in the air altogether.

I am not suggesting imaginary cases. I will refer to one or two actual cases, which I think are significant of the sort of situation that may arise. There was a case in 1926, of a man of eighteen and a girl of fifteen. He had got her into trouble. She was pregnant. The man wanted to marry her, and the girl wanted to marry him. Both sets of parents consented. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were interested, and they wrote both to the boy and the girl, holding the view that criminal proceedings seemed: to be a tragedy. They were married, and no proceedings were taken. Another is the case of a man of eighteen, who got into trouble a girl of fifteen and a-half. Inquiries were made. Both sets of parents desired that they should marry. The youth desired to marry the girl. No proceedings were taken. I have other cases of very much the same character, it does seem to me a strong thing to say that you shall not in any circumstances be able to do anything for these parties; that they shall be condemned, the child to illegitimacy, the girl to lose her character, and the parents to look on impotently, though they desire that the affair should be rehabilitated.

I do not say that this is final, but what it did bring to my mind is that this Bill ought to receive a little more consideration. That is all that, from the very beginning, I have desired to attain. I naturally support the principle of the Bill, but I think that hurried legislation, on a matter which does affect the marriage laws of this country, ought to be brought in by a Government. I sought—and I still seek—guidance from the Government, and I appeal to them to consider whether in some way or another we cannot be assured, by further inquiry, that evil repercussions which may be avoidable will not result from this Bill. I do not know how that can be done. There are ways in which the Government could take the responsibility. A Select Committee might go into the matter. At my age I am not anxious to take part in political or public controversy, but I shall be more than satisfied if I can get some assurance that, before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, an inquiry will be made to see what its real effect may be. With regard to my noble and learned friend's Amendment, I should have, I think, to support him, but I am not in the least eager about it, because I think it produces some uncertainty. But sooner than take nothing I would take that. What I do want to see is some inquiry.

VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT

My Lords, I naturally look upon this Bill from the point of view of how it will affect my co-religionists. I should like to say at once that I welcome the principle of the Bill. A canon law of my Church raised the age only a few-years ago, in 1917—the age of boys from fourteen to sixteen, and of girls from twelve to fourteen; and at the same time it enjoined that the clergy of my Church should dissuade from marriage to the fullest extent in their power at any earlier age than was commonly the custom in their respective countries. But what I particularly want to urge at this moment is what fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Han-worth, and also from my noble friend Lord Desart—namely, that more time is required for the consideration of this Bill.

After what they have said it is not for me to enter into the legal points which have been raised. I can quite understand the eagerness of the noble and learned Lord to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, because I have no doubt he has hopes that it may get through in another place this Session. But I cannot help suggesting to him that, if it does go to another place in its present form, I do not think there is very much change of its getting through, because time is important, and, from what has been said in this House, I am sure a great deal more will be said in another place; whereas, if it is possible for the Bill to receive further consideration by being referred to a Select Committee, I believe after that it might have some chance if it went to another place with these points cleared up. At any rate, I most earnestly urge that in some form or other further consideration should be allowed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will realise that one or two of us were not very imprudent when we urged him not to press the Bill the other day without giving further time for noble Lords to look it through carefully. We have heard this evening a discussion of a most interesting kind in which noble and learned Lords standing very high in their profession and having a very great knowledge of this subject have differed diametrically in their views of this Amendment. That is not the only point. We have just heard a speech from my noble friend who is not a lawyer, but who represents in a special degree in your Lordships' House the great religious connection of which he is a member. He says that he is not prepared finally to resolve this particular question which is now before your Lordships without further time. It has reached me that it is not only members of the Roman Catholic Church who are uneasy, but that there are members of the Church of England who have taken steps to communicate with those they know to be in authority, not to oppose the principle of the Bill but to plead for a little more time for consideration in order that they may make up their minds upon this very point as between "void" and "voidable." No doubt that is one of the matters they have in mind.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in his speech said that surely it could not be contended that an act which is highly criminal before marriage should be allowed by the simple process of getting the marriage through first. He knows as well as I do that that is not the real case which presents the difficulty. It is not the case of two people, a man and a woman or a boy and a girl, who up to the moment of marriage have had nothing to do with one another and then, after marriage, do the very act which had they done it before marriage would have been a criminal offence. That is not the difficult case. The difficult case is where an undoubtedly criminal offence has been committed, where there has been connection and the woman or the girl is pregnant. Not only is it a difficult case, but upon the figures submitted to me, 64 per cent, of the marriages of girls under sixteen up to now present this very feature. In 64 per cent of the cases the girl is pregnant before the marriage. That is the real case to be considered What is to be the position and how is that position affected by the Bill? The effect of the Bill is that the child when it is born will be illegitimate, and the wishes of the parents in these cases Very often will be made of no effect. They desire that the girl should be married (I do not say in every case) for the obvious reason that, her position should be regularised, and that the child should be born legitimate. That is the difficulty. I confess that upon the balance of a very difficult consideration when the Second Reading was under discussion, I was on the whole inclined to cast my opinion with the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master. But I knew it was an exceedingly difficult position and that is the reason for the hesitation which your Lordships no doubt marked in the speech I made.

We have been witnesses to this remonstrance made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Darling, Lord Desart, who was Director of Public Prosecutions, and Lord Hanworth, Master of the Rolls, a very distinguished lawyer, and also by my noble friend Lord FitzAlan, who spoke for the Roman Catholic body, not necessarily in his case at any rate, presenting any opinion so far as this difficult issue is concerned, but saying that he would like to have more time. I am afraid the Government cannot resist that plea. I know it may be very unwelcome to the noble and learned Lord. No one admires more than I do his great zeal in these matters, but I think that he must yield to the express wish of so many distinguished members of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

I do not quite understand the meaning of this Motion. Does it mean that the Committee upon this Bill, having been prolonged to an unusual hour, is to go over to another day? Is that the purpose of the Motion?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is.

LORD BUCKMASTER

It is that this debate be again adjourned. Why? No reason whatever has been given to suggest a reason for further adjournment. There has been an elaborate discussion. I say frankly that it is not difficult to get up an elaborate discussion in this House. Given the time that there has been at the disposal of the people here, it is easy to ask three or four people to come, and speak and then to say, "See what a mass of opinion there is arrayed against this Bill!" What further time does anybody need in order to ascertain in his own mind whether sixteen is the right age at which marriage should take place in this country or whether it should be, as it is now, fourteen?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No; the question is whether it should be void or voidable.

LORD BUCKMASTER

AS to that, it may be that my mind is incapable of receiving these arguments, but I simply fail to understand how any one who is in favour of raising the age of marriage can possibly be in favour of raising it subject to the condition that you can make it voidable. Let me deal with the case put forward by the noble Marquess and referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Desart. A girl has been attacked and made pregnant by a man who ought to be sent to gaol, yet you say that to save the reputation of the girl he ought to marry her. I am amazed that people in such a case can say to a child: "You have to be married for the rest of your life to the man who put you into this condition, although he is only a boy, in order to save your reputation and the reputation of your child." I say it is the most ignoble thing that can be done—redeem-

Resolved in the affirmative, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.