Lords Sitting of 19 July 1937

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Craigmyle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ABERYSTWYTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COULSDON AND PURLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN GLASGOW ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Contributory Employees
3.—(1) On and after the appointed day all such persons as are mentioned in the next succeeding subsection shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to participate in the benefits of the appropriate superannuation fund maintained under this Part of this Act, and persons so entitled shall, unless they are such persons as are mentioned in the proviso to subsection (1) of Section six of this Act, contribute to that fund in accordance with the provisions of that section.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE, moved, in subsection (1), after "this section," to insert "and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity." The noble Viscount said: The Government Amendments to this clause and to the other clauses, with the one exception of the Amendment relating to military service, are really drafting Amendments, or Amendments put in to clarify the intentions of the Government which, since the Bill left another place, we do not consider to be sufficiently clear. The first Amendment is purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power to admit employees of statutory undertakers and certain associations]:
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Where a local authority under Section 101 of the Local Government Act, 1929, make a grant to a voluntary organisation for the provision of maternity and child welfare, services, the provisions of subsection (1) of this, section shall apply in relation to that organisation, and to health visitors and superintendents of welfare centres employed by those organisations as they apply in relation to statutory undertakers and to employees of those undertakers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to a matter which was overlooked rather in the other House. It raises no question of principle or of controversy. If noble Lords will look at Clause 5, they will see that it empowers the local authority, where it makes an arrangement with a voluntary organisation which has been doing some of the work which is a statutory obligation on the local authority, to arrange with that voluntary organisation, when their officers are included in any scheme, to include them on the terms here prescribed. If noble Lords will look at subsection (5) of this clause they will see that in the other place the local authority were empowered, when they came to an arrangement with voluntary organisations which had been employing midwives, to arrange that the midwives so employed by voluntary organisations should be incorporated in the superannuation scheme as, and when, the local authority took over that organisation. The discharge of duties under the Midwives Act is a statutory obligation on the local authorities, and the voluntary organisation in this case is performing these duties on behalf of the local authority. That is the case with regard to midwives.
The case is identical with regard to officers employed in maternity and child welfare services. The officers on maternity and child welfare services were overlooked in the other House, and it is to remedy that omission that this Amendment is on the Paper. It is in the same terms as

543
subsection (5), only it relates to health officers and others employed by infant welfare associations. These associations are working for the local authority, carrying out part of the statutory duty of the local authority, and gradually up and down the country these organisations are being taken over by the local authority. This is to provide that where that is the case those who have been doing the work for the voluntary organisation—work which has been in fact paid for by the local authority in the main—will be incorporated in the scheme, and on incorporation will not lose any of the benefits which might otherwise be lost to them because they had previously been employed by a voluntary organisation. It is to remedy this deficiency that this Amendment has been placed on the Paper. I am indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, for pointing out that in the Amendment the word "make" should be used instead of "makes" as appears in the Amendment as printed, and I move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to say one word in support of the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord has explained the purpose clearly, and it is not my intention to deal with it to any extent. I only want to say that his Amendment receives a measure of support from this side of the House, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to indicate his acceptance of it. It is a very necessary Amendment if the Bill is to be complete.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I say at the outset that any provision designed to improve the lot of those who work in the employment of voluntary bodies as auxiliaries of the local authorities and thereby to increase the efficiency of the valuable services rendered by those bodies must, in principle, commend itself to those ultimately responsible for the health of the nation, and, I can confidently say, would naturally command the sympathy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. I am afraid, however, that, attractive as this Amendment may well appear to some noble Lords, I must ask the noble Lord not to press it at this stage
544
of the Bill. The subsection as it stands was accepted by the Government as an Amendment in the House of Commons. It relates, as will be noticed, only to midwives employed by a voluntary organisation with whom the authority responsible for midwifery services have made arrangements under the Midwives Act of last year. The duties imposed on the local authority, and consequently the services required of these midwives, are definite and specific—they are to be, so to speak, "on call," as and when required, to attend women needing the midwifery service for which the local authority are in law responsible. Their salaries are such as may be determined by the agreement and, in effect, the local authority indirectly pay those agreed salaries through the voluntary organisation—an important point in the superannuation scheme. They are as nearly as may be in the same position as midwives directly employed by a local authority.
The position of health visitors doing maternity and child welfare work is analogous, but not identical. The financial arrangements between the authority and the voluntary body are not the same. Services are not similarly specified, salaries are not specifically controlled and subsidies are not so directly related to salaries. It was considerations of this kind which led the majority of the SelbyBigge Committee to reject suggestions designed to secure the same object as the Amendment before the House. The case of the midwives, which, I submit, can be clearly differentiated, was not, of course, before that Committee, who reported some years before the Midwives Act was passed. If an attempt were made to cover the case which the noble Lord seeks to cover, amendment of the Bill would logically have to be carried much further than he proposes. You could hardly differentiate between health visitors engaged on child welfare work and those similarly engaged on work in connection with the blind, the tuberculous and the mentally defective, as employees of voluntary bodies whose financial relations with local authorities are for the most part indistinguishable in principle from those of child welfare organisations.
I do not wish the noble Lord and those for whom he speaks to regard this as necessarily the last word on the matter for all time. My right honourable friend

545
has undertaken to explore the possibilities in another matter affecting the superannuation of nurses and health visitors, to which the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, alluded in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Earl had a vision of amending legislation. I certainly am not bold enough to say it may not be necessary on a complex subject of this kind. In any case my right honourable friend authorises me to say that he will explore this matter in conjunction with the other, and it may be that consultation with the local authorities and others concerned may throw a different light on the considerations which, as at present envisaged, compel me to ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.
LORD ADDISON: In view of the statement of the noble Viscount I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I take it that the undertaking given by the Minister is one which will be fully applied to this as well as to the other matters to which he referred. I am well aware of the difficulties and the technicalities which are involved, but I am quite sure that with good will under an energetic Minister, such as we now have, they should be overcome. In those circumstances I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Reckoning of contributing and non-contributing service, war service, and service of persons indirectly employed.
(3) In the case of a contributory employee who left the employment of a local authority in order to serve in His Majesty's forces or the forces of the Allied or Associated Powers during the late war, the period during which he so served shall be taken into account for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as if it had been a period of service within the meaning of this Act:
Provided that, in the case of an employee who, after the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, voluntarily extended his term of service in the forces, no period of such service during any such extension shall be taken into account.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The first Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I can explain it if necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 28, leave out from ("day") to ("any") in line 3o.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment in my name is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 33, after ("1922") insert ("in relation to his said employment").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3), in the proviso, to leave out all words after "Provided that" and insert "no such service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, shall be taken into account." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to which I referred on Second Reading, and it was also referred to on Third Reading in another place. It is designed to meet the point that certain municipal employees may not have been able to return to their municipal work after serving with the Forces at the Armistice. The clause as it stands would probably have covered the case of a man who was not demobilised until some later date, but the proviso would have prevented the reckoning for superannuation purposes of any time subsequent to that date in which the man continued to serve with the Forces as a result of voluntary extension of his services. It is felt that doubts might well arise as to the exact circumstances in which a man did continue in the Forces, and it might be difficult to establish whether his continuance was in fact an extension or not. Therefore we propose to put in a date and to remove the reference to the voluntary extension. The date selected is that which has been agreed by the Treasury for Civil Service purposes, and we think it a sufficient extension to meet all the cases that ought to be met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 12, leave out from ("that") to end of subsection and insert ("no such service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, shall be taken into account").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Teachers]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment in my name to this clause is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("1935") and insert ("1937").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Actuary's certificates and periodical valuation of superannuation fund]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, after ("shall") insert ("within three months after receiving the valuation and report").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Adaptation to this Act of certain provisions of local Acts and of provisions of certain schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment which I move to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("or within such further period as the Minister may allow").(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Modification or replacement of local Act superannuation schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 38, after ("section") insert ("and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Reduction of superannuation allowance during re-employment and adjustment of rights thereafter.
31.—(1) If a person entitled to a superannuation allowance under Part I of this Act, other than an allowance payable to him in
548
respect of service rendered without a disqualifying break of service as a designated employee and a contributory employee, proposes to accept further employment with any local authority, he shall inform that authority that he is so entitled and, if he enters their employment, shall forthwith give notice in writing that he is so employed to the authority from whom he receives the allowance.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (1):
"and if he fails or wilfully neglects to give such notice he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment not exceeding three months."
The noble Viscount said: I cannot think it right that the clause should omit to state the penalty to be imposed. The penalty which I suggest in my Amendment is, I understand, from my noble friend, looked upon by himself and his advisers as somewhat savage, but if he has any alternative proposal to make should be glad to consider it. It does seem to me a little absurd to forbid a thing and then to have no penalty in regard to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: While it is true we do look upon the penalty suggested by the noble Viscount as a somewhat savage penalty, at the same time we do appreciate the point which my noble friend has raised. I would like to point out to him that this is by no means a solitary instance of omission in a measure of this kind of any specific penalty. I understand that it has been held by the Courts that where a Statute involving public interests (as this measure does) enjoins a duty on a person and that person wilfully fails to comply with it, he commits a Common Law misdemeanour, to which a penalty automatically attaches. It is unnecessary, therefore, to introduce a specific provision, such as the Amendment proposes. I would also like to point out that we do not think there is much likelihood in practice of the pension-paying authority remaining in ignorance of the pensioner's reappointment. Local authorities will doubtless find out—and can, if need be, be advised to do so, and indeed it is the intention of the Ministry to advise them to do so—information on the point from any applicant for appointment whose age is such that he may

549
already be in receipt of a pension, and these authorities would naturally notify the pension-paying authority. I think that with that safeguard—the fact that it is a Common Law offence—the noble Lord will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am satisfied with a great deal of what my noble friend has suggested, but on the question of likelihood, I think every likelihood in a Bill should be considered. As, however, persons who contravene this clause will be liable to some penalty I am quite satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Decision of questions, and appeals to the Minister]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Schemes, rules and regulations]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("(3) The Minister may extend the time within which any scheme under this Act may be or is to be made or submitted.")—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Interpretation.
40.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
"officer" means an employee as to whom either of the following conditions is satisfied, that is to say:—

(a) that his duties are wholly or mainly administrative, professional or clerical; or

(b) that his remuneration is at a rate greater than two hundred and fifty pounds
550
per annum and that he is not an employed contributor within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936;

THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in the definition of "officer," to leave out "either" and insert "any," in order afterwards to add to that definition:
"or
(c) directly and regularly employed on duties in any hospital or institution maintained by a local authority."
The noble Earl said: The object of the two Amendments which stand in my name is to bring council servants as well as council officers into the compulsory superannuation scheme. As the Bill is drafted council officers come under the compulsory scheme whereas council servants come only under a permissive scheme, a scheme which in the view of the local authority it is desirable should be brought into force. In order to make the real object of the Amendment clear to your Lordships I am afraid I shall have to tell you the history of superannuation schemes as regards Poor Law officers or, as they are now, public assistance officers.
As far back as 1864 when the Poor Law was administered, as your Lordships know, by boards of guardians, an Act was passed dealing with both officers and servants. So many anomalies arose that in 1896 a compulsory scheme was set up on a 2 per cent. basis which applied not only to officers but to every wage-earning employee That worked very well until the Local Government Act of 1929 came into force and the boards of guardians were abolished. In the meantime, in 1922, an Act was passed which applied to the council officers and made it permissible for a superannuation scheme to be brought into force for both officers and servants. When the boards of guardians were clone away with public assistance officers and servants came under the 1922 Act, but an option was given them either to continue under the 1896 Act or to come under the 1922 Act in cases where it was applicable to them. Since the 1st April, 193o, employees of the council have not been eligible under the 1896 Act, and therefore they come under the 1922 Act, which applies to county council officers. The purpose of this Bill is to set up a compulsory scheme for county council officers, but it leaves the servants of the council with only a permissible scheme.
It seems to me that you will get two people doing identical jobs dealt with in two ways, one coming under the compulsory and one under the permissive scheme. A servant of the council who was under the board of guardians before 1930 would come under the compulsory scheme whereas any servant of the council who had joined the service since 1930 would come under the permissive scheme. That is an anomaly which should be done away with. To give an example, in the past nurses had to do all sorts of jobs which might have resulted in their being looked on as servants, but now owing to the emancipation of the nursing profession nurses do not have to do the rough jobs and orderlies do them. The orderly becomes a servant. I may take another example which I will term that of the "black squad." Those of your Lordships who know anything about ships will understand the men I refer to, the men who tend the furnaces below. They have to come up and clear away the refuse of the operating theatre. It seems to me that they run just as many risks as the people in the operating theatre, yet they do not come under the compulsory scheme. I very much hope that the Government, who lately have been sweetly reasonable towards Amendments in this House, may consider this Amendment favourably and if they cannot accept it now will promise that something will be done on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I hope that the Government are always reasonable, but I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I would like to remind the noble Earl that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and the mover expressed satisfaction with the Minister's reply. Apparently the noble Earl, although he belongs to the same Party as the honourable member in another place, is not satisfied. The object of the noble Earl's Amendment is to make the whole staff of any hospital or other municipal institution compulsorily superannuable. That is a fundamental alteration of the principles of the Bill, which limits the obligation imposed upon local authorities to the superannuation of whole-time officers. Although the Amendment is drafted in wide terms, embracing hospitals
552
and any other municipal institution, I understand it is moved primarily on behalf of that body of municipal employees which corresponds to the old Poor Law staff of the board of guardians. These employees, as a whole, used to be compulsorily superannuable by virtue of the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896. In fact, what the Amendment proposes is a complete reversal of the considered view of Parliament expressed in 1929 when, by the Local Government Act of that year, the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act of 1896 was specifically repealed in its general application to the public assistance staff of the authorities who then displaced the guardians, though the position, as regards superannuation rights, of existing Poor Law employees to be transferred to the new authorities was, of course, safeguarded.
The Act of 1896 was a superannuation Act applicable to a particular service, quite distinct at that time from all other local government services and administered by a different set of authorities. But when the county and county borough councils became the public assistance authorities after the Act of 1929, it was no doubt recognised by Parliament that the persons who would be employed in their service in the performance of public assistance (or what had formerly been known as Poor Law) duties would not form either the largest or the most important part of their staff, and that, inasmuch as there was not in force any Statute which compelled them to superannuate the rest of their staff, it would be impossible to continue to require the compulsory superannuation of their public assistance staff. If the Amendment were made, it would mean that, in addition to whole-time officers, part-time officers and servants employed in any sort of hospital or institution—Poor Law, public health or of any other description—would be compulsorily superannuable. I have tried to show that we do not think there is any case for again making Poor Law employees as such, or any particular class of them, compulsorily superannuable, and we do not see that there is any case for singling out any other type of "institutional" employee for this privilege. Even if the argument based on the old position of Poor Law employees under the Act of 1896 were accepted as relevant, there would be no case for making a distinction within the category of Poor Law

553
employees between those employed in institutions and outdoor staff—as, for instance, part-time relieving officers, district medical officers, and so forth, all of whom used to be compulsorily superannuable under the Act of 1896. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied with that explanation in the same way as his colleague in another place was satisfied.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am afraid I am not so accommodating as my colleague in another place. I am not at all satisfied. It is perfectly true that this Amendment, or an Amendment very similar, was moved in another place, but since then a deputation has been received by the Minister of Health of those for whom I speak—the National Union of County Officers—and I was hoping that, as a result, the Minister might have been more accommodating. The noble Viscount said with regard to the Local Government Act, 1929, that this was not envisaged. Many people, however, who were employed by councils took it more or less for granted that some Act envisaging compulsory superannuation for all wage-earning employees of councils was thought of at that time, and they thought that when this Bill was brought in it would envisage also the servants of councils. I think that is the general view held by a very large number of employees of councils. I understand that this particular Amendment will affect somewhere in the region of 200,000 people. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Earl will correct me, but I am told that the number is perhaps 200,000. It should therefore have a big effect. I am sorry that the noble Viscount who speaks on behalf of the Government will not accept the Amendment. I have no intention of troubling your Lordships by pressing it to a Division, but I am quite prepared to have it negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to say, before the Question is put, that I do not think it is true that the Government ever gave any undertaking to employees engaged after the passing of the Local Government Act that they would be put into compulsory insurance. Perhaps the noble Earl is talking about those who were previously in compulsory insurance and, after the passing of the 1929 Act, were given the right to opt whether they would go on under the old terms of the
554
1896 Act or go into voluntary insurance under the new Act.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not say that the Government gave any undertaking; I merely said that I thought it was generally understood by county council officers and servants as intended.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Repeals and construction of references]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 31.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("1935") and insert ("1937").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendments in my name to this Schedule are really drafting and consequential, but I can explain them if necessary. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: With your Lordships' permission, I will put the Amendments en bloc. There are several of them.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 11, leave out from ("as") to the end of line 14 and insert ("is remuneration for duties corresponding to the duties in respect of which he was, immediately before the appointed day, subject to the Act of 1896;"
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("the said part of his remuneration") and insert ("so much of his remuneration as aforesaid")
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("the said part of his remuneration") and insert ("so much of his remuneration as aforesaid")
Page 51, line 6, after ("subsection") insert ("(3) of Section three and subsections (5) and")
Page 54, line 44, at end insert—
("4. Where the fund out of which the remuneration of a mental hospital employee was or is paid by the body under which he was

555
or becomes such an employee is not the fund out of which superannuation allowances are paid to such employees, the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed."—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMIS SIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERAN NUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill be now read a second time. The general object of the Bill is to secure that there shall be provision by all local authorities in Scotland of facilities for the superannuation of their employees. The Bill is a comprehensive one which not only amends existing statutory provisions but also consolidates them in a separate measure for Scotland. The principles of the Bill are generally the same as those of the English Bill which has already been before your Lordships. The Bill provides for the compulsory inclusion in a superannuation scheme of all whole-time officers of local authorities in Scotland. From returns which have been obtained from Scottish local authorities it appears that some 60 per cent. of such officers already enjoy the benefits of superannuation. This Bill will extend these benefits to the remaining 40 per cent. and, by making the amounts of pensions and the conditions under which they are granted uniform throughout Scotland will facilitate the free movement of staffs which is desirable in the interests of efficient local government. In this connection it may be noted that provision is
556
included in the Bill, and in the corresponding English measure, to ensure that local government officers will be able to retain superannuation rights if they move from service in the one country to service in the other.
The Bill leaves to local authorities the discretion they already possess as to the superannuation of their other employees, but it simplifies the machinery for bringing them into superannuation and improves the position of superannuable servants as well as officers in important respects. For example, the Bill enables superannuable employees to count for superannuation purposes all past local government service, and, in so far as it is service in the course of which they have not paid contributions, they will be able, in return for a payment to be prescribed, to reckon it as contributing service. Where an employee, owing to age or ill-health, is given less arduous duties with a consequent reduction of pay, he will be able, if he wishes, to continue to contribute as if his pay had not been reduced and thus secure his full pension. In calculating pension, which will continue to be based on the last five years' average pay, periods of unemployment and reductions of pay owing to sick leave are to be ignored. An employee will be able, in return for the surrender of part of his pension, to secure an annuity for his widow. The Bill does not affect the position as regards transfers between the State and municipal services, which is governed by regulations made under the Superannuation Act, 1935. Special provision is also made for the admission to the scheme of registrars and their staffs, and for reckoning the service of persons indirectly employed on local authority duties.
In order to secure schemes which are actuarially sound, some grouping of local authorities is necessary. Under the Act of 1922 no local authority can have a separate scheme if the number of officers or servants who will be included in the scheme is less than fifty. While it is proposed to retain the minimum of fifty in Scotland it is essential to the proper working of a scheme that the membership of each fund should be as large as circumstances permit. Many counties and large burghs, and all small burghs, have less than fifty whole-time officers, and in order to make actuarially sound

557
schemes the employees of small burghs are to be grouped with employees of the county, and, where there are less than fifty contributing employees, county and large burghs are to be grouped. The larger authorities, who will be required under the Bill to establish separate superannuation funds, will be liable to accept as contributors to their funds the officers and pensionable employees of smaller authorities, who will pay their equivalent contribution to the same fund. Much preparatory work both by the Department and by local authorities will require to be done before the scheme can be brought into operation. In order to allow time for this the Bill proposes to fix the 16th clay of May, 1939, as the appointed day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULA TION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 72.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out from ("the") to ("extent") in line 37.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the subsection affected by this Amendment is that dealing with the important duty which will fall on the district committees in deciding what benefits in kind are to be allowed in lieu of cash wages, and what value is to be placed on those benefits. The Amendment, which deals only with the valuation aspect of the committee's duties in this respect, was made in response to representatives that if the committees were left entirely without guidance in the matter of the value to be placed on the
558
various items comprised in benefits in kind, they might come to diverse conclusions which might operate unfairly as between the various districts. There is no suggestion that uniform equivalents should be laid down. Obviously the value to be placed on, for instance, a supply of coal must be related to the price of coal in the particular district concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before your Lordships agree I should like to ask my noble friend for some further elucidation of this question. The Bill as it originally stood left these perquisites, and their value, to be assessed by the local committees, and it is essentially a local problem. These perquisites are of an extremely varying character; they vary as between farm and farm. They vary very often by reason of the farm's position in the county, or the character of the farming which is being carried on there. To take my noble friend's illustration of coal, it is obvious that coal delivered at a farm which is ten miles from a town has a higher value on the farm than coal delivered within a mile of the town. The perquisites are a most valuable asset to the farm worker because they ensure that whatever obligations he has incurred he always has enough to feed and warm him, and to keep him in a fit condition to carry out the arduous work of the farm. Moreover, these perquisites are very valuable as a means of good will between farmer and worker, because while the perquisites are almost always of a high character a farmer who wishes to be friendly with his men will see that these perquisites are of a uniform good character, and the men, as I know from experience, are extremely prompt to respond to advances of this kind. These committees have got to work in an atmosphere of good will, and the working out of a point of this kind seems to me essentially a matter for these committees. I can imagine no better way in which they could get to work. Moreover, the value put upon these perquisites is precisely a point on which local knowledge is required, and it is of extreme importance that a man's own representative on the local committee should be associated, and closely associated, with the value put upon a perquisite.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, as I endeavoured to point out to the noble Lord when I spoke before there is, I think, no suggestion that a uniform equivalent should be laid down. It is plain that there should be some general uniformity of practice in regard to the value of such things as a house, milk, coal or potatoes, or anything you may like to suggest, but the point of the Amendment is to give the committee that guidance which I think it is obvious they will need on the question of valuation. Such general guidance on this particular aspect of their functions will not interfere in any way with the power given to the committees to determine the appropriate minimum wages for the district, and with that assurance I hope the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("and, subject to regulations made by the Department in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section eight of this Act, the value at which they are to be so reckoned").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, Page 4, line 14, after ("the") insert ("Department and to the").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this clause deals with the procedure to be adopted by the district committees when they have made a decision affecting a minimum rate. At that point the next step lies with the Wages Board. The Amendment lays it on the committee to notify the Department as well as the Board. There is some convenience in the Department being immediately aware of the committee's decision, and the Amendment was therefore accepted in another place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("(2) In any proceedings against a person under this section it shall lie with that person to prove that he has paid wages at not less than the minimum rate.")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment follows the terms of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act of 1924, which applies to England and Wales. It was omitted from the draft Scottish Bill because it casts the onus of proof on the accused person. It has been restored on representations that without it it might be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove its case, since probably the only documentary evidence of actual rates of wages paid would be in the hands of the employer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, when the Matrimonial Clauses Bill was before your Lordships we had to listen to long dissertations by noble and learned Lords on the iniquity of placing the burden of proof of innocence on the accused, and I hope that those noble and learned Lords who, as Lords of Appeal, are Scottish Judges, and have a locus in this business, will say whether this provision in a Government Bill makes any difference to their view or not. As a matter of practice farmers do not, as a rule, keep receipts for wages, and this will force them to keep such receipts. Moreover, those receipts are often lost. Perhaps some unscrupulous person might even make away with one, and once having lost his receipt, the farmer is entirely in the power of the man he has employed, who may be discontented. In all my memory of reading of cases concerning farm servants in the local Press I can recall no single case where a Sheriff has ever had any actual difficulty in practice in ascertaining what wages had actually been paid to any man, and I do not think that the passage of this Bill will make any greater difficulty than has been found before.
Moreover, it is practically acknowledged by those who have promoted this Bill that the one danger of the Bill is that it may drive a wedge between farmer

561
and farm worker. This Amendment is almost devised for that purpose. Let your Lordships imagine what happens at almost any time. A farm worker sends his child up to the farmer and asks for an advance of £1 on account. The child is going up to get the milk allowance in any case. The farmer sends down and says he cannot give the pound unless the man comes up and writes out a receipt. There you have bad blood made at once, and yet under this Bill, with this Amendment in it, that is precisely the kind of situation that will be brought about time and again. I enter my wages in my account books, but I never exact receipts from my men, and I do not think they would altogether like me if I did. They are intelligent men and some are well educated, and this kind of thing all makes for trouble.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's feeling and his interest in this matter. Perhaps I can give him this much assurance. In moving this Amendment in Committee the Lord Advocate made plain that abuse of the provision was very unlikely in Scotland, where the system of public prosecution is universal. It would be the first duty of Crown Counsel in every case to examine carefully the evidence tendered in support of the prosecution, so that the risk of frivolous or vindictive prosecution, such as the noble Lord seems to be afraid of, would, I think, be very small. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 9, after ("whether") insert ("or not")
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("not") and insert ("a fine is imposed")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, these Amendments are both drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 10, leave out ("in addition")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting, and is consequential on the other changes made at this point. The same is true of the two Amendments which follow. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("fine if any") and insert ("worker")
Page 6, line 28, after ("pay") insert ("to the worker")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 8, line 6, at end insert:
("(a) for prescribing the general principles on which a committee shall determine the value of the benefits or advantages (not being benefits or advantages prohibited by law) which may be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of cash;")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Schedule, page 12, line 11, leave out ("may, if at any time they deem it expedient") and insert ("shall")
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN, who had given Notice of a Motion to disagree with the Commons Amendment, said: My Lords, this Amendment makes it obligatory on the Minister to appoint two independent members to each local committee. In many parts in Scotland—where I live at any

563
rate—this Bill has occasioned great perturbation among farm servants. They have not perhaps had a very happy experience of the present Government's benevolent intentions towards them. The Scottish Housing Act has operated very greatly to their disadvantage, and they know it. They often address questions to me on the subject asking what the real intentions of the Government are and whether the Government are aware that they are borne upon so very hardly by this benevolent, but I submit, somewhat unwise Act. The consequence of that is that they are very much alive to the possible consequences of this Bill, which they do not think will operate as much to their advantage as its promoters maintain. Therefore the good will and good feeling and sense of co-operation between farm workers and farmers which have long existed in many parts of Scotland are prejudiced.
In my own part and, I believe, in Ross and Cromarty, in Banffshire, along the southern coast of the Moray Firth and I should say right down to Galloway, you will find in every part farm workers quite prepared to work in cordial co-operation on these local committees with farmers and vice versa, and I think it would have been much better had these independent members not been appointed, or if the Government were not compelling themselves to appoint these independent members, because it is like calling out the military and telling them to load with live cartridges when three or four people are assembled together in a street. It is panic legislation, it is assuming that they will not work together in harmony which, I can assure your Lordships, in most parts of Scotland they are very willing to do. It is also going to be very difficult to find independent members. There are not so many people with a real practical knowledge of country affairs who are not themselves engaged either in farming or in something very closely connected with farming. Moreover, there is always the danger that an independent member may serve upon a committee in an adjacent district, and it would be a grave disaster to any committee to have an independent member bringing in the experience he has got from a neighbouring district to help his judgment in another district, for this reason, that the districts vary very much among themselves, and it is quite
564
impossible to bring the experience of one district to help out one's knowledge in another.
There is another danger, which is that these independent members are to be appointed by the Department and presumably by the Minister, and as they come from the Department they will be suspect both to the Chairman and to the committee. They will be tempted possibly to have their own private communications with the Department behind the back of the Chairman and though I have no doubt the Government will discountenance such action, these independent members will never be clear from the suspicion in the minds of the farmer and the farm-worker that they may be in such close touch. For all these reasons, I think it is a great pity that this Amendment has been made in the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance on the subject or else agree to delete these words
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was good enough to inform me some time ago that he felt strongly about this Amendment. He and I consulted together, and I hope this afternoon our consultations will come to a good result. On this occasion I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion. When the Bill left your Lordships' House it provided that the two independent members should be appointed if the Department deemed it expedient. The discussion on the Bill in another place, however, showed that widely divergent views were held as to the occasion and purpose for which such appointments would in practice be made. For instance, certain members thought that it was the purpose and intention of this provision that it should be used to inject into a committee at the height of a dispute two additional members. It was suggested that the powers of appointment so exercised would enable the dispute to become immediately a matter of Parliamentary debate and controversy as being an administrative act by a Minister. This would be clearly undesirable.
It follows, moreover, from that suggestion that, if the power of appointment

565
at discretion was used at any time before a dispute arose, complaint would be made that the power had been unfairly used with a view to prevent Parliamentary discussion of any dispute that might subsequently arise. In making any such appointment, too, it would be difficult to avoid the risk of suspicion that it was designed to influence the proceedings of the committee in one way or another. In these circumstances it is felt that it would be better that the two independent persons should be members of the committee from the outset and that it should be so laid down by Parliament. Further consideration, too, has suggested that the fear that it might be impossible in outlying districts to find two suitable persons for appointment is exaggerated. No insuperable difficulty has arisen in comparable parts of England and Wales.
Some doubts have been expressed as to whether it is desirable that there should be two independent members on the committee at all, but there are strong arguments in favour of their presence. Experience in England and Wales, where a similar Act has been in operation for over twelve years, has shown that their presence on the committee has been of the utmost value. Moreover, in the absence of these members, a very heavy burden would fall on the independent chairman; there would be a danger of his finding his position intolerable. This might lead to frequent changes of chairmanship, and consequent dislocation of the committee's business. The addition of the two independent members has also this further advantage, that they will be available for nomination as vice-chairmen, so that in the absence of the chairman, the chair will be taken by a person who is familiar with the work and personnel of the committee. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press his Motion.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask whether the chairman will be consulted about the independent members? Can the noble Lord give me an assurance on that point?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think I could give an undertaking that that will be the case, but the information I have received from the Department is that in nearly every instance this consultation will certainly take place.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement, and I accept his assurance with much gratitude. Before withdrawing the Motion, I would like to thank him for the very free-handed way in which he has put his time at my disposal to get this question thrashed out.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Schedule, page 13, line 14, leave out ("(of whom at least one shall be a woman)")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the provision that the Agricultural Wages Board should consist of equal representation of the two parties, including on each side a woman, follows the recommendation of the Caithness Committee's Report. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland have represented that, since there are not very many women farmers, there is not much point in making it obligatory on the employers to appoint a woman to the Board. The position of the workers' side is different in this respect, since there are numerous women employees. It will be recognised that the Amendment does not imply in the least that no woman may sit on the employers' side of the Board. It will be competent for the employers to elect or nominate a woman, or several women, if they choose to do so.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL FORMERLY MARRIAGE BILL.
Petition for the rejection of; of Reginald de Mornay Davies; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. We are now rapidly approaching the stage in the passage of the measure which may properly be considered "journey's End." It is perhaps the most far-reaching and most important Bill of a domestic character which has been introduced into this House for a generation. The deep and sustained interest which the House has taken in it has shown how ready and how well qualified it is impartially and sympathetically to consider any legislation which intimately affects our home life. Supporters and opponents alike have surrendered, in the interests of the Bill, much to which they attach importance, value, and weight. On Second Reading the House devoted no less than two full days of Parliamentary time to the Bill, and the unusual procedure was adopted of holding a late night sitting in order to consider it. Numerous Amendments have received meticulous attention and, as a result, a constructive piece of legislation which is long overdue and urgently required has now emerged. All supporters of the Bill desire to tender thanks to the Government for setting aside so much Parliamentary time and assisting the passage of the Bill, a privilege which is but rarely accorded to a Private Member's Bill.
The debates, I suggest, have served a great purpose. A well-instructed public opinion has steadily developed and advanced, and as the Bill now stands amended we believe it receives the support of the large majority of thoughtful men and women throughout the country. The sanctity of family life to which we attach such great importance has not been assailed and has not been weakened. On the contrary, it has been protected and strengthened. The Bill gives expression to the widespread determination that the interests of an injured spouse and of his or her children, as the case may be, shall be adequately safeguarded and fully protected. In cases of cruelty, cases of desertion, and cases of incurable insanity or of gross depravity relief in future will be given. Surely there cannot be any who can or who will resist this Bill on humanitarian grounds. Where the companionship, the sympathy and sweetness of marriage have for ever passed away; where it is no longer a real marriage but merely a sad memory; where all that
568
makes marriage sacred and happy has gone, this Bill attempts in the interests of the man and in the interests of the woman and of the child, and, above all, in the interests of the State, to unravel the tangled skein.
I respecfully venture to commend this Bill to the House because it will remove misery and it will relieve distress, and because it recognises the gravity of the evils arising from judicial separations, which inevitably lead, as has been ably pointed out in this House by many speakers, to illicit unions. Those of us who happen to be in charge of the Bill are only too unhappily conscious that many hard cases will still remain, but we take comfort in the hope and knowledge that the Bill deals with some of the major difficulties which afflict domestic life. It will tend to discourage ill-considered, rash marriages, and marriage of those who, under present conditions, are not reluctant or ashamed to rush into easy and early divorce. It will remove the grievous hardship imposed by the ill-assorted and unhappy marriage, extending throughout the very lifetime of an injured or aggrieved partner.
It is fortunate indeed that, although the Bill raises matters on which there are wide and deep-seated differences of opinion, it is a non-controversial measure from a Party point of view. Those of us who are piloting the Bill realise that we have been travelling along the edge of a precipice of acute religious controversy. We have used every effort to proceed, as far as may be open to us, by way of tolerance, by way of understanding, and by way of a true appreciation of the views of those who are not in agreement with us, and who oppose all forms of divorce. We recognise that government in such matters must be by mutual toleration, and we have left no stone unturned to preserve the marriage tie in its highest social sense.
Turning, if I may, to another aspect of the Bill, I desire to emphasise my firm belief that this Bill will do much to alleviate the hard lot of the poor person. It is very difficult for a spouse in the absence of adequate means to follow up the adulterer or deserter. This is particularly so in the case of a poor married woman—a case which has been alluded to in this debate in such moving and eloquent terms by the noble and learned

569
Lord, Lord Atkin, and other speakers. While this; point may not be fully met, it is indeed greatly aided and assisted by the legislation which is now proposed. Clause 1, for example, also helps poor persons. The waiting period becomes a period for reconciliation. They can always seek separation orders from magistrates, and evidence given before a magistrate can be used subsequently when proceedings are taken for divorce. Perhaps most important of all, I am given to understand on good authority that the machinery under the Bill, and the rules and regulations which will be framed elsewhere in future under the Bill, will give very special consideration to the claims of poorer people. The Bill serves all classes of the community, but will prove of special advantage to the ill-treated or the deserted wife in poor circumstances. I venture to regard it, indeed, as a charter of hope for the poor and the distressed.
During the passage of the Bill through the House many members have received a large volume of correspondence, much of it of a distressing character, and I have not been excepted in this matter. I have not felt justified, however, in taking up much time of the House with such individual cases; but as typical of one perhaps the House will generously permit me to refer to a communication that I have received. The letter reads:
"I am married to a man who having made my life a hell was not satisfied, and finally threw nitric acid over my face and body, for which he received seven years penal servitude. He still threatens me from prison and intends to claim me on his release if he can find me. Under existing laws he can still do so. I have spent nine months in hospital and shall be in and out for the next twelve months for plastic surgery."
And here comes a still more pathetic and even more tragic passage in the letter:
"I wonder if it is worth while going through with it as no doubt he will do more damage next time. I cannot remarry and so secure the protection of another man unless this Bill is passed. You will appreciate how anxious I am that this Bill should become law and give me a chance. I only wish you and your fellow members could see how terribly disfigured I am. I have been left with a baby to care for and my health and strength are gone. What am I to do?"
A most pathetic communication, but one, I am sorry to say, typical of a good many that I have received.
Seldom in the history of legislation has a Bill promoted by a member who has only recently joined Parliament re-
570
ceived such close and sympathetic attention. The measure has, indeed, stirred the heart of the country. In so far as it may be permitted to me on such an occasion, in such surroundings, I venture to offer cordial and hearty congratulations to Mr. Herbert for so rightly interpreting and so happily advancing the cause of so many unfortunate and so many distressed people. I respectfully commend this Bill once again to the approval of the House in the hopeful belief that it may obtain the same generous measure of support which has already been accorded to it. I trust that ere long it may reach the Statute Book and take its place as a sound constructive measure, upholding the marriage tie, advancing domestic happiness, and strengthening the due observance of the laws and Statutes of the land. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I think I am expressing the feeling of every member of your Lordships' House when I say that, whatever our opinions may be with regard to this measure, the noble Lord who has just spoken has treated us with every consideration, not only with tolerance but very happily in every direction. I should like to say a few words to-day because I have not taken part in these debates. I did take part some years ago in a debate which was initiated by the late Lord Buckmaster, on this very question. I think that everyone in this House really wants to make the world better, and the only difference between us is which is the best way to do that. A very large number of noble Lords in this House have read the Report of the Royal Commission, but that was made a very long time ago, and since then there have been very many changes in every direction. Everybody will realise the irregularities which occur and the uncertain and disastrous state of the law which has been shown on many occasions. Everyone likewise will agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down when he says this matter is one of considerable importance. So far as the country is concerned, no one really knows what the opinion of the country is, and I am rather inclined to think that it is quite possible it might be in opposition to the result of the Division to-day, though of course it is impossible to say that definitely.

571
With regard to Clause 1, I realise that there are very many noble Lords who look upon this question from a different angle, and I realise that their opinion may be just as valuable as my own, but to my mind the consideration of Clause r is one of the most important matters that have come before Parliament, and I have been in Parliament nearly forty years. I consider the decision taken last week to be of supreme importance. My reason is that I believe that if normally there are no divorces during the first three years after marriage that will be a general help to the maintenance of the marriage system in this country, and we shall not then adopt the system which we see and dislike in many of the States in America. No doubt it will have its difficulties, and I agree with the statements which have been made about evidence. There is no doubt that those difficulties will have to be overcome in some way.
The noble Lord who has just sat down said that he moved on humanitarian grounds, and I do not deny that for one moment. At the same time I look at the question of divorce for insanity from a very different aspect. I would like to support what was said by the most reverend Primate and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in regard to this question. I dare say many of your Lordships have had the opportunity of knowing of cases where men have returned to sanity after ten or even fifteen years. It seems to me that we are taking a very big step in making this change. In one particular the Bill goes further than the law in those American States where they do not make insanity a ground of divorce. I do not know what the law is at this moment with regard to all the States in America, but I know that when President Theodore Roosevelt called a conference to consider the divorce laws the experts unanimously decided to exclude insanity. I think that is a very strong argument.
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, for whom many of us had a great affection, said in this House that he would not deal with the question from an ecclesiastical point of view, and therefore as a mere layman I feel it very difficult to say anything from that point of view. Nevertheless, as a member of the Church of England I rather desire to say one or two words. We are a Christian country. Some people seem to doubt that
572
but there is no doubt about it in reality. We date our letters from the birth of Christ, we have our Coronation services and other services and we really do acknowledge the divinity of Christ. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and I really believe that we ought to look at this question and consider it in the light of what He would do if He were here in human form, although I can realise that those who think His view is no better than that of Confucius or Mahomet taking a totally different attitude from the one I take up. I do not want to say any more in regard to the question except that I am very sorry to have to vote against the Bill. I recognise that great efforts have been made to overcome difficulties but I feel that it is necessary for me to vote against it. I would only like in conclusion to quote the words of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, afterwards Lord St. Aldwyn, whom many of us knew in both Houses of Parliament:
"I think all of us would agree that if there is to be a change in the policy of this country it ought to be made so that it should last. It ought to be made, therefore, as the result of a strong sentiment of deep, real conviction on the part of the great majority of the people in this country"
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I only intervene for a few minutes because I think I ought to say that after careful reflection I see no reason to depart from the attitude which I tried to explain on the Second Reading of this Bill. I said on the Second Reading that if in its passage through Committee either it was made from my point of view worse, or if what I regarded as vital clauses were weakened or tampered with, I might find it necessary to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. The Bill has emerged after the most careful scrutiny from your Lordship's House rather better than worse. As to the much debated Clause I, if it is worth while to have a time limit before any petition for divorce can be presented, at least this Bill makes provision to guard against abuses which must have eventually arisen. I deeply regretted that your Lordships did not see fit to remove the ground of insanity from the grounds permitted for divorce, but at least that clause was in the Bill when it was first introduced and there is no change in that respect. I will only refer in passing to Clause 12 protecting the conscience of the clergy and to Clause 4, which, although

573
I most heartily wish with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it could have been made much stronger, certainly does strengthen the powers of the Court in dealing with open and notorious abuses of the existing law to which attention has been called over and over again. I regard that clause and some others as so valuable that I do not think it would be honest on my part, however much on other grounds I may wish to do so, to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
But it is one thing to be ready to do what is possible to improve the existing State legislation or to remove the abuses to which it gives rise; it is another thing actively to promote the extension of that State legislation. Therefore, if a Division is challenged I can only repeat what I said before, that I shall be compelled to stand aside. That decision, though it has brought much understanding support has also, not unnaturally, given rise to a good deal of criticism and misunderstanding—sitting on the fence, facing both ways, and all the rest of it. I am not perturbed, because I think that position arises from the necessities of the case, from the conflict between the law of the Church as declared in the Marriage Service and the law of the State. Ever since 1857 the Stat., has seen fit to depart from the principles of the Church in this respect. Under this Bill the position will be worsened rather than improved. But it may be, and I have always acknowledged the fact, impossible for the State to impose Christian principles by law upon a mixed community when many of its members have neither the religious faith nor the assisting grace to enable them to live up to the Christian standard. That is the reason that in my judgment makes it the more necessary for the Church more resolutely to maintain that standard for its own members and to do all it can to uphold it for the whole community. As a guardian of that standard, my Lords, how can I bring myself to vote actively in favour of a Bill which contains some provisions which seem to me inconsistent with that standard?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the speech which was delivered by the roost reverend Primate expresses the view at which I have humbly arrived and with which I should not be justified in detailing you: Lordships for more
574
than a very short time at this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord who moved the Third Reading just now began his observations by stressing the importance of the Bill. I entirely agree; it is a very important Bill. It is going to affect, as he justly pointed out, the domestic life of millions of our fellow-subjects in one way or another. In my view, however, it is even more important in principle than it is in its actual effect. The most reverend Primate has declared that this Bill is not in accordance with the rule of the Church of England, and he thinks that that rule was first departed from in 1857. He may be right, but I am convinced that the people of this country believe, rightly or wrongly, that the provision with regard to divorce made in 1857 was in accordance with the Christian rule of marriage. I cannot bring myself to doubt that this cannot possibly be said of the present Bill. I do not think that position has been challenged by anybody except by that—if he will allow me to say so—brilliant controversialist, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
His argument was founded exclusively on one or it may be two texts in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. With all respect to him, even assuming that his interpretation of those texts is right—and he knows very well that there is dispute on that point—and assuming that you are to judge only by those texts and by nothing else, it yet seems to me quite impossible to maintain that this Bill is in accordance with Christian rule. For it is perfectly plain that by that rule divorce is absolutely forbidden except for one cause, which is admitted by the present law; and this Bill extends that cause in several directions. Therefore, though it might be argued, and I have no doubt was argued in 1857, that the divorce law as then enacted was in accordance with what was conceived to be the teaching of the New Testament, I do not see how anybody can maintain that this Bill is of that character. Moreover, I am not going to attempt to deliver—it would be very improper for me to attempt it, and this would not be the place where I should attempt it in any case—a theological argument. I will merely say that the other passages of the New Testament which refer to marriage certainly do not support any view as to freedom of divorce or the extension of divorce. Indeed, as I read

575
them, without any question they regard marriage as indissoluble according to the Christian doctrine.
As the most reverend Primate has just said, no one who reads the Marriage Service of the Church of England can question that it expresses, without doubt, the doctrine and position which the Church of England adopts. Twice over, as noble Lords will no doubt remember, each of the parties to the marriage, with every solemnity which words can give, promises that the marriage shall be indissoluble, shall be lifelong in all circumstances. There can be no doubt at all that this is the teaching of the Church of England. I readily admit, however, that this does not in itself dispose of the matter. A very important question remains which, although it has been alluded to in these debates, has not perhaps been treated very fully; nor am I going to attempt so to treat it now. But the great question which remains, when you have arrived at the position which I have ventured to describe, is whether it is right that the State should impose the Christian rule of marriage upon all its subjects. If you look at these texts of the New Testament, I do not think you can doubt that none of the declarations therein contained was directed to what might, or might not, be the law of the State. Indeed, you will recollect the reference to the Mosaic law, which apparently allowed a much freer system of divorce: that was admitted as an exception. No disapproval of it as an exception was expressed; it was merely said that that exception was made in the primitive view of marriage, and the primitive law of marriage, because of the weakness of human nature—or, as it is put in our Authorised Version, "hardness of heart"—of the Jewish nation. Therefore I venture to submit that in this matter the rules laid down were rules of morals, as indeed I think all the rules in the New Testament were, and not rules of law.
Therefore you come to the question how far and in what circumstances it is right that the State should try to enforce a rule of morals on its subjects. For the purpose of this part of my argument I do not weigh on the Christian side of the matter; it applies to any rule of morals. It is the teaching of experience that where the State insists, or tries to insist,
576
on a rule of morals—particularly in matters of this kind, sexual matters—which is in advance of the morality generally accepted, of what the old jurists used to call "positive morality," the morality, that is, of the people generally, the result has usually been disastrous. I am dealing with rules of morals, mind you; I am not, of course, dealing with questions where other people's interests are affected. I do not attempt to lay down a universal principle in this very difficult matter. I feel that if it can be shown that the present rule about divorce is not supported and is not approved by the conscientious convictions, the morals, the positive morality of the day, then it is a matter of the gravest doubt whether any attempt should be made to maintain it.
If that contention is right two consequences seem to me to follow, both of which are important. One is that you must be satisfied, as far as you can be, that the proposed change has the support of public opinion, which I have tried to describe. There is nothing more difficult than to ascertain what is public opinion on any particular question. We have in our Constitution no direct machinery for enlightening us on that point with regard to any particular question, but in this case we have two facts which it seems to mc, in default of any considerable evidence to the contrary, are very weighty. First, of course, we have the findings of the Royal Commission, which have been so often referred to in these debates, not in themselves, I admit, based upon public opinion, but based upon very considerable inquiry and considerable evidence—the sober view of men who were certainly extremely well qualified to express an opinion on that subiect—and it seems certainly probable that that opinion, which has never been violently attacked since it was given, did represent the public opinion of this country.
Then we have, of course, the decisions of the other House. At some time or other we have all said, at any rate those who are engaged in active politics, that the majority of the House of Commons does not represent the opinion of the country, but I do not see how you are to justify the whole conception of representative institutions unless you do assume, broadly speaking, that that is the case. It may well he that the public

577
opinion of the country has changed. It may be that a new Election would give a different result, but there is no particular reason that I know for supposing that if there were a dozen General Elections it would change the opinion of the House of Commons on this question. This House of Commons, remember, is a House of Commons with a very large Conservative majority, and therefore one which is, or presumably is, averse from change, and is not likely to do anything unnecessarily in the teeth of the opinion of the majority churchmen, or a majority, at any rate, of the leaders of the Church. Therefore I think that its repeated votes are strong ground for believing, and indeed, without anything on the other side, conclusive ground for believing, that the people of this country are in favour of the provisions of this Bill, and conscientiously believe that the marriage law ought to be changed in this respect.
I do not deny that personally I regret that opinion. In spite of the very hard cases, and no doubt there are very hard cases under the present law—in spite of all that I doubt very much whether the experience of the world has shown that a relaxation of the moral law on the whole tends to the advantage and happiness of the people. I am not impressed, certainly, with the condition of affairs where that process has been carried very far, and I have grave misgivings, I do not conceal, as to whether, broadly speaking, and taking everything into consideration, not fixing your mind on one particular set of hard cases, but looking at the whole results, the whole effect of this kind of legislation, on the fibre and moral well-being of the people, it will turn out ultimately be to the advantage of the people or to their happiness. For the reasons I have given, however, I do not see what else can be done. To enforce the stricter rule against the opinion of the majority of the people, or to try to do so, I cannot believe would be wise or just, or likely to be permanent in its results. For that reason I am unable to vote against this Bill.
There is one other consequence which I roust say greatly confirms the conclusion at which I have been forced to arrive. The most reverend Primate has just said that it is incumbent upon the Church to insist upon its view of what is right all
578
the more because the State has taken a different view. That is, to my mind, one of the most important results of this Bill. You have here, as I see it, a clear division between the law of the Church and the law of the State, and that is recognised by the Bill. Clause 12 is a clear admission that that is so, and that the State cannot enforce on the Church its view of the marriage law. That seems to me a precedent of enormous value and enormous importance. You have now the proposition established that, although the Church cannot enforce its views on the State, neither ought the State in any matter of religion and morals to attempt to enforce its views on the Church. That is a great step towards one of the most desirable things, as I think it, that we can have—the freedom of the Church.
That is a question which, as your Lordships know, has been very much discussed in recent years, and has been the subject of considerable inquiries by the Church and by Commissions appointed by the authorities of the Church. It will have to be considered in the future. It will come up undoubtedly for settlement in the near future, in my humble opinion. Then it will be of great value to be able to point to this clear precedent and admission that the law of the Church and the law of the State are different; that while the Church has no right to enforce its views on the State neither, in a matter of morals or religion, has the State any right to enforce its views upon the Church.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I feel I am entitled, without any apology, to intervene in this debate, because during all the preceding stages of the Bill I have sat upon the Cross Benches mute and dumb, while four of my noble and learned colleagues gave active and eloquent assistance to your Lordships in making up your minds as to what attitude you should adopt. I confess that I derived some mild amusement during the process, for I could never understand why it was that your Lordships should listen with such bated breath to the views on the question of divorce of lawyers. To me the question is not at all a question of law, although a question of law did here and there crop up in the course of the discussion, for instance, in the case of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to Clause 4. That certainly did involve a legal ques-

579
tion, and it was a refreshing sight to see that for once, and for once only, my four noble and learned colleagues found themselves in the same Lobby. The question of divorce is not a legal question; in my opinion it is a social question and a religious question; and I could never understand why it was that the opinion of a Lord of Appeal should weigh in the consideration of this matter any more in the scales than the opinion of any one of your Lordships.
Having now with candour, but with great affection—I will not use the vulgarism "debunked," but shall I say justly appraised the true value of, my learned colleagues as divorce experts, let me now say a few words about the Bill. The Bill starts off by striking certainly a humorous note—it may be unconscious humour, but humour there is. For it claims as its first object the true support of marriage. Well, well, that may be a very clever paradox, but it appears to me to be a blatant untruth; for if it had been written out in full, and had been written out not only fully but truthfully, it would have run: "Whereas it is expedient for the true support of marriage to create a few more grounds for the dissolution thereof." Like all true humorists the draftsman has left something to the imagination, and he has left those essential words out of the Preamble. But there are in this Bill features which are certainly not open to objection. May I mention one?—the clause, I think it is Clause 4, which endeavours to defeat those collusive proceedings which are making a mockery of the Courts, and are rapidly reducing marriage to the condition of a partnership terminable at will. A second beneficial provision is the one which affords relief to the consciences of clergymen of the Established Church in England and the clergymen of the Church in Wales; and had a Bill been brought forward for this purpose it could, I conceive, have met with no opposition in any House at all.
But this Bill, though it incorporates those good features, goes far beyond that. It is a Bill mainly and essentially to extend the grounds for divorce, and that is the reason why I, who am fundamentally opposed to divorce in any shape or form, must vote against this Bill. The Bill as it came from another place contained Clause 1 in its original form—the
580
five-year clause. My noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, in speaking on the Second Reading, while rejoicing at the Bill as a whole, described that as a terrible clause. How divergent are our views, for I should describe this as a terrible Bill with Clause 1 as its single redeeming feature. But there it is, and I venture to think that our treatment of Clause 1 in this House does not redound to our credit. Let us see what has happened. Of course there was no bargain—no bargain of any kind, such a thing is impossible and unthinkable. But this much I do think is clear, that Clause in its original form was put into the Bill in another place for a twofold purpose—to secure support and to allay opposition; and those purposes it achieved. The goods were delivered, and the goods reached your Lordships' House in good condition. And what did we do here? We have cut down the price to vanishing point, and your Lordships were only prevented by a narrow majority from stopping the cheque altogether. Judged by any standard of commercial integrity, that seems to me to be not a creditable performance.
This question of dissolving the marriage bond upon which people differ so profoundly is, as I have said, both a social and a religious question. Theologians may dispute as to the meaning of certain Scriptural texts, but so far as I am aware no theologian has yet advanced the view that divorce was sanctioned or authorised by Christ upon any grounds other than the ground of adultery. And this Bill goes far, very far, beyond that, for it introduces amongst its fresh grounds a ground for which no moral delinquency could be attached or imputed to anyone. It is said—and this is one of the arguments—that if divorce is once accepted, if you are to look upon divorce as an established institution of this country, then the rest must follow, and it is further said that those who object to divorce should not oppose the extension of an accepted principle. I utterly deny that proposition. If in one's judgment a thing is vile, if in one's judgment a thing is unchristian, I declare that by one's conscience one is bound to oppose any extension of the sphere of operation of that evil thing.
Those of us who adhere to the old faith are but a small minority in the country. We are only a tiny minority in either House of Parliament, while in this House

581
only is Christianity represented as such. And it is for these reasons that we Catholics looked forward with anxiety and hope to hear what lead would be given in this House by the Lords Spiritual to the members of the Established Church who compose the great majority of the Christians in this country. I take leave to say that the disappointment has been general and has been grievous. The hungry sheep looked up and were not fed. The most reverend Primate, in his speech on the Second Reading, described the principal proposals of this Bill as being contrary to Christian principles. Yet he gives no vote against the Bill. On the contrary, he voted for the exclusion of the amended Clause 1. These things are difficult to a plain man to understand. How it can be I know not, and the only conclusion which one can draw is that the sheep of his flock are of so many breeds that no diet is found which will agree with the constitutions of all. About this matter we Catholics, at all events, have no doubt, no hesitation, and no difficulty. We believe divorce to be an evil thing. We believe it to be contrary to the teachings of Christ, and we believe that the holy bond of matrimony, once validly established, can, and should, only be dissolved by death. For these reasons I will vote against this Bill, and I urge your Lordships to adopt a similar course.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH: My Lords, I would like to say a few words on this issue, which is one of very supreme importance. The earnestness of the speech to which we have just listened and of those delivered by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading and by the noble Viscount opposite, are indicative of the serious feeling felt throughout this House on this issue. But it is bound to have the effect of increasing the number of divorces. Those of your Lordships who feel (as indeed we all feel in a sense) that divorce is an evil: those who feel it is wrong, cannot but deplore anything which will produce a larger number of these divorces: those of us who feel that divorce is not the root of the evil, but that something lies at the back of it which has to be faced and somehow met, and which this Bill seeks to meet in an equitable, just, and helpful way, cannot deplore the fact that the number of divorces is increased if wrongs are thereby put right. I
582
have no doubt that on both sides of the House, with regard to this Bill, there will be a feeling not only as to the number of divorces that take place under it or apart from it, but as to the effect which this Bill and previous legislation must have upon the feelings and beliefs of the country as a whole with regard to marriage. Those of your Lordships who oppose this Bill, and for whose opinions I have profound respect and whose arguments I am conscious have great weight, do so with a feeling that this kind of legislation is bound to weaken the sense of the obligation which marriage ought to carry with it. Those of us who are prepared to support this Bill question that.
We do not think that the ideal of marriage is upheld so long as there is any large section of the community which is suffering a sense of grievance, that the law about marriage is unjust, and there are people who feel themselves to be placed in a false position from which they cannot get free. We think that this Bill is likely to help, and not hinder, the true state which marriage ought to be. I have no doubt your Lordships were impressed by the very grave words in which the noble Viscount said that, without any question, this Bill was contrary to Christian principles, contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, and contrary to the law of the Church. I confess I disagree with him in every one of these statements. And I disagreed with him certainly when he said here was a divergence between the law of the Church and the law of the State in this matter which ultimately would only be solved by complete freedom and separation of those two bodies in respect of that legislation. The most reverend Primate will not, I am sure, think it disloyal of me if I disagree with him also. He has urged that this Bill is against the law of the Church. No doubt it depends, in part, upon your conception of what the government of the Church really is: but for several hundreds of years the law of the Church and the law of Parliament have been linked together, and you cannot get the law of the Church unless it is approved by Parliament, and all the proceedings which have taken place in the past in respect of the law of matrimony have been laws of the Church and laws of Parliament too.

583
I would like to remind your Lordships that the Church to which the noble Lord (Lord Russell of Killowen), who spoke so earnestly and warmly, belongs, did for centuries practically give divorces. When you had a law of nullity on such an artificial footing as that upon which the mediæval Church proceeded to give decrees of nullity, and when, along with that, you had the fact that the children of any marriage which had been declared annulled were nevertheless legitimate, I find it quite impossible to distinguish between that and the law of divorce. Surely, legitimate children are children of a legitimate union, and if the children were legitimate, then the union was legitimate, and the nullity was, in fact, a decree of divorce. In our own day, in our own Church, when Bills were before Parliament which dealt with this matter, they received episcopal support from the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. They were Bills which have all along had in support of them a measure of Church opinion. Why is it to-day that Church opinion has in certain circles hardened very much against granting any divorce? Surely it is simply because of the fact that they see this large number of divorces taking place, and there is the feeling, deeply rooted, that this increased number of divorces does indicate a weakened sense of the obligations of the marriage vow.
The noble Viscount, when he was instancing the law of the Church, said that in every marriage each party repeatedly vows a lifelong union. Certainly, and it is true to say that no marriage, no Christian marriage, could be put forward on any other footing. It is our conception of what marriage ought to be. But I will ask noble Lords to consider what happens in this case. Every Christian man baptised into the Church is baptised with a vow binding upon him at all times, and in all circumstances, that he will renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil. Every Christian man, when he kneels down, confesses he has not kept that vow. The Church meets that with the law of forgiveness, and certainly, if persons who have been unfaithful to one another, will confess their sin and say they are going to try to do better, that is the one solution we should all desire and pray they will have the grace to seek
584
and the strength to enable them to fulfil. But surely when one of the two partners has utterly repudiated his vows and obligations, when one partner has deserted the other or subjected the other to constant cruelty, you have got to meet the position in a new way. The Church has always had to face this, and I believe that Our Lord's teaching is consistent with facing it in the way in which this Bill proposes to face it. I have in my own experience come across instances in which the happiest unions have followed after release has been given, unions on which I am quite certain that God's blessing rests.
I do not believe this is a State Bill divorced from Christian feeling. I believe it represents the truest Christian feeling of this country. I think it is in accordance with Christ's spirit. I think it will tend to promote that sense of sympathy and helpfulness which people in distress look to Christ and His Church to give them, and consequently I cannot think that it will damage Christian feeling in the community. It is often said that persons ought to be prepared to submit to sacrifice and accept a hard lot, feeling that it is for the good of the community that they should do so, that it is something they must hear and be prepared to bear. God forbid that there should be any check put upon the finer examples of this Christian spirit, but you cannot get this Christian spirit if you compel somebody else to consent to what involves a great sacrifice on his part and which he regards as radically unjust and unkind. The heart must go with it, and it is because of that feeling that I think we are mistaken when we insist upon the letter of the bond, disregarding the spirit that lies behind it.
What is real, true marriage? It is not a contract, not tying a man and woman together for life, but the love and the loyalty of the parties which will lie behind that. Thank God a very large proportion of the weddings in this country do reach a great height of the Christian ideal. A good many others do not succeed in rising to a great height; nevertheless the parties to them make a good thing of it, putting up with one another's infirmities and carrying along on the lines of which we all approve. But where you have these terrible cases in which a man and woman are utterly divorced from one another, where one is neglected or treated with ruthless cruelty, I cannot feel that

585
it is in accordance with the mind of Christ that we should say: "Never mind, you are tied up and nothing must release you." Therefore, it is that I am prepared wholeheartedly to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, after what my noble friend Lord Salisbury said the other day about Scotsmen taking part in a debate of this character, I feel that perhaps I ought not to have intervened, but I am justified by the fact that I was married not far from here, in St. Margaret's, Westminster, a good many years ago, by the Lord Bishop of Durham, who is supporting this Bill. In view of that I think that perhaps I am on safer grounds than if I had spoken purely from a Scottish point of view. At this stage of the Bill we are arguing, or talking about it, from quite a different point of view from that which was present to our minds during the Second Reading, Committee stage, or Report stage of it. We are now at that vital issue: Is this Bill going to be law, or is it not? If the Division with which we are threatened to-day goes in fax: our of those who are against the Bill, then it is an absolute certainty that the Bill will be lost and that a measure which finds great support in the country will be defeated.
It seemed to me, as I listened to these debates and followed the many lights which have been thrown upon it from an expert point of view, whether by lawyers, or by doctors, or by Bishops, that there is one point which has not been sufficiently brought forward during our discussions. It seems to me that your Lordships' House has considered this question perhaps too much from the point of view of the older generations and not from the point of view of the generations who will be affected by this Bill more than others. In these days of equality of man and woman, there is little doubt that the younger generations regard these questions from quite a different point of view from that taken by those whom I will call the old and sere and yellow generation. Wherever I have gone amongst the younger generation in the country and have spoken to them about this Bill, one and all, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have shown themselves not only to be in favour of it, but most emphatically so.
586
I believe that if the Division which is in front of us goes against this Bill the younger generations will lose a great deal of their faith in your Lordships' House, a faith which at the present moment stands high. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that before you go into the Division Lobby on this Third Reading you consider what the view will be, not of people of our age, but of all the younger generations who are looking forward to the passage of this Bill as one that meets modern conditions and the modern point of view. Twenty-five years ago a Royal Commission recommended provisions of a similar nature to those that are contained in this Bill, and during those twenty-five years those who have believed in those provisions have grown stronger in their belief. If your Lordships find yourselves at the end of this Division as the slaughterers of this Bill, I do not dare to think what will be the views of these younger generations and even older generations who are looking forward to the relief which will be given to them by certain provisions contained in this Bill. I rose to say those few words only, because I believe that that side of the whole issue has not been taken sufficient notice of, certainly not in the speeches to which I have listened. I hope that your Lordships will think of that side of it before you register your vote in the Division Lobby.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I had no intention when I came to the House to-day of inflicting myself upon your attention, but the direct reference to me which the noble Viscount made seems to call for a very few minutes intervention in your Lordships' debate. Since this Bill was introduced it has been discussed with so much solemnity, so much ability, so much care in your Lordships' House that public opinion has been attracted to it with increasing closeness, and the effect of that has been, I think, to make it quite clear that the serious mind of the Christian Churches in this country is in favour of the Bill. Only to-day I read "Methodists and Divorce." The Methodists are a very important community amongst the Christians of this country. What do I find? By a very large majority they welcome this Bill as an endeavour to remove the anomalies and hardships of the existing law. When, therefore, I heard the most reverend

587
Primate and the noble Viscount speaking as if it were an assumed matter which could be stated without risk of challenge, that this Bill introduces a conflict between the law of England and the principles of Christianity generally, I will confess to your Lordships that I felt a shade of indignation which I am only able to put aside, to dissipate, by remembering how strong are their convictions and how lofty are their characters.
The noble Viscount was good enough to make a reference to me. I am always a little restive when people introduce a polite reference to me by calling me "brilliant," and when that adjective leads on to the substantive "controversialist" I suspect a definite hostility. The noble Viscount who I am glad to see has now returned to his place—some magnet seems to be attracting noble Lords who were absent to return to their seats—adopts an oracular style which tends perhaps to clothe what he says with an impressiveness somewhat in excess of the soundness of the proposition. He was good enough to say that I rested my whole case, which I ventured to put before your Lordships some time ago in the Second Reading debate, on a single understanding of a text which was in itself doubtful. I cannot flatter myself with the belief that your Lordships will still retain in your minds what I said, but if by some miracle you should do so, you will remember that I built my argument upon a very much larger foundation than that. I pointed out, in answer to the most reverend Primate, who had quoted the text of St. Mark as if that were an unchallengeable pronouncement of our Saviour, that it was in conflict with the (Ecumenical tradition and that St. Matthew's Gospel indicated that apostolic understanding of the words of Christ did admit that for an adequate cause marriage was dissoluble. I indicated that when the sense of a text in the Gospel is doubtful both in text and meaning, reference is normally made to the tradition of the Christian Church, and that, I would point out to the noble Viscount, is various.
It is quite reasonable for the noble Viscount and other noble Lords who are members of the Roman Catholic Church to identify the Western tradition with the tradition of the' whole Church Catholic. It is natural for them to take that view,
588
but the rest of us, who regard our tradition of the understanding of Christ's word and the tradition of the Eastern Church as not less authoritative, are entitled to say that here we have a second great interpretative instrument by which the Gospels must be understood as speaking with various voices. It is not open to the noble Viscount in his oracular manner to say that it is the one and only declaration of the Christian mind. Roman Catholics may take that view, but their assumptions are not his. His argument fails in its primary premise.
I venture to ask your Lordships to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. I dissent from the noble Viscount's interpretation of that clause which allows the clergy of the Church of England to stand out of the operation of the Bill. I dissent because it is news to me that the clergy are to be identified with the Church of England. That clause is a concession to clergymen's consciences, a very wise, a very politic and a very necessary concession, but it leaves the question of a conflict between Church and State, if there be one, entirely unaffected. I venture once again to ask your Lordships to accept this Bill not only because I am convinced that it will remove many hardships which ought to be remedied, but because I am persuaded that it will bring the marriage law of this country into closer harmony with the principles of Christ.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I hope you will bear with me for a few minutes as I find myself in a rather peculiar position as it seems likely that I shall be the only Lord Spiritual in this House who, when a Division is taken, will find himself in the Lobby with the Not-Contents. I do not wish to go again into the question which has been debated and on which my brother the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham have expressed opinions, the question of what is or is not the Christian doctrine of marriage. I shall go into the Not-Content Lobby because I believe this Bill to be fundamentally an anti-social Bill, quite apart from the interpretation of certain texts in the New Testament. I believe it is anti-social because it is not for the true support of the institution of marriage. I have not heard in this House, nor have I been able in reading the report of the debates in another place to

589
find, any real argument to show that it does support marriage. It has been taken for granted again and again that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell of Killowen, said just now, it is quite obviously a Bill for increasing divorces. If that is supporting the institution of marriage, well and good; but I cannot see it. I notice that those in charge of the Bill have seen to it that when the Bill goes back to another place, it will no longer be the Marriage Bill but the Matrimonial Causes Bill. I think that is a very good thing, and I congratulate them on having changed the name, because it seems to me that they have been getting a little unhappy about this question of supporting marriage, and they will not call attention to the fact that it is really something else.
I believe it is a bad Bill. I am sure that any legislation, in this country or anywhere else, ought to be, if it is good legislation based on sound principle. I do not believe that this Bill is based on any principle at all. We have heard any amount about hard cases and difficulties, of which we are perfectly aware, and I am the last person to ask that we should simply do nothing about these hard cases. But I submit that this is not the way to deal with hard cases, because, as I ventured to say on the Second Reading, it is going to create a great many more hard cases through weakening the defences which are set up by a sound public opinion. It is simply a further instalment of the 1857 Act. It seems to me to be the most curious bit of legislation, because it rewards the wrongdoer with exactly what he wants to get. That has been proved up to the hilt.
I know that you may say that this Bill contains safeguards against collusion. Of course, as a layman, one has to listen very carefully to noble and learned Lords who say that that is so. I hope it may be so, and that the Bill will prevent collusion. As a matter of fact, however, what happens? Here is a contract. Whatever else it may be, it is a contract, and a person who deliberately breaks it gets away with the breach and gets exactly what he wants, which is his freedom. It seems to me a most extraordinary way of rewarding what we all recognise as wrongdoing—except in the case of insanity, in which the wretched man or woman, as has already been pointed out,
590
is not responsible at all. In all these other cases of desertion, cruelty and so on, there is wrongdoing by one of the parties, and the law now., in England, is going to reward the wrongdoer by giving exactly what he or she wants, which is freedom to leave his wife or her husband, as the case may be, and contract another marriage. That does seem to me to be the most topsy-turvy kind of legislation.
I understand that this Bill was brought forward to prevent collusion. I have discussed this matter with a great number of people and with a considerable number of lawyers. They all admit that you cannot stop collusion over matters of this kind, because, as my right reverend friend sitting on this Bench said just now, advocating the Bill, if love and loyalty have gone—those were not his exact words—why try to keep the marriage going? That is exactly the point. Who is to say when love has gone? The only parties who can possibly say when love has gone are the husband and the wife. They alone know. That is the real point to which you come in the end. And this is, as I say, only an instalment of something further. There IS no principle except to end up in exactly the thing that you want to prevent now, which is divorce by consent. That is the end to which we shall come, and if you think that is good for the nation and is going to uphold the most fundamental thing in our social structure, well and good.
Forgive me for referring again to what I said on the Second Reading. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred to the young people. I wish to say that I take quite another view of the young people. I believe that a few years ago a great many of the young people would have welcomed this Bill, but today the young people are beginning to see ghastly results accrue from simply playing fast and loose with the marriage tie. I have seen a great change among a considerable number of young people. This is an educational Bill, and I beg your Lordships to realise that if this Bill passes into law the great bulk of young people, and of older people, will take their direction from the law of the land. There is no nation in the world, I believe, which respects law more than we do, and I do not believe there is any country in which

591
legislation has so great a power in forming public opinion. It goes out that your Lordships by a majority—it may be a big majority—and the House of Commons by a majority, believe that this is all right. The people have not and never will follow all the debates, but they feel that if this is the law, then it is quite right to do it. You are starting off on a campaign of educating the younger generation. In fifty years time or less I do not believe that people will look back and bless us for that work. I said that I was not going, and I do not mean, to enter into a controversy with regard to what is or is not the Christian law. My last word is this, that I am going to vote against this Bill because I believe that it is against the most fundamental law of God with regard to the procreation of the human race, its upbringing and its education in the ultimate problem of life, which is how to live together.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I submit that if you follow the argument of the right reverend Prelate to its logical conclusion, it means that a law founded on the Christian principle should be a law of punishment of the wrongdoer. I submit that a far finer object to concentrate on under the Christian spirit would be to frame laws for alleviating the lot of those who have had wrong done to them. Before I sit down, to illustrate my argument, if I may: if again you follow the argument used by the right reverend Prelate to its logical conclusion, then anyone who is found torturing a cat should by law, in return, be tortured himself. However much any of us might believe that that would be a very good way of stopping cats from being tortured, I hope that never in this country will justice not be mixed with mercy.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, having troubled your Lordships on several occasions before in these debates, I did not this afternoon intend to speak again. I think, however, that there is one thing which still needs to be said. I will be very brief, more especially in view of the two speeches delivered by the two right reverend Prelates who have answered what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It would be unfortunate if it were
592
to go out as a result of this debate, without challenge, and without challenge from a layman, that this Bill is in any way inconsistent with Christian principles. The noble Viscount said that it was perfectly plain that the Act of 1857 was consistent with Christian principle but that this Bill was not. The noble and learned Lord upon the Cross Benches, Lord Russell of Killowen, would not agree that the Act of 1857 was consistent with Christian principle, and Scottish legislation has shown that no Scotsman would hold that this Bill is inconsistent with Christian principle. It is apparent, without going into argument, that there are grave divergencies of opinion.
Speaking as a humble but entirely devoted member of the Church of England, I should only like to emphasise the point that I would not support this Bill if I believed it to be inconsistent with Christian principles, nor do I believe that any of your Lordships would support it if you had such a belief. The authority and eloquence with which the two right reverend Prelates have spoken have made it unnecessary for me to pursue that point further, but I think it important that it should be definitely announced that we who are supporting this Bill are not supporting something that we believe to be inconsistent with Christian principles. The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches spoke with his authority, eloquence and sarcasm about the Preamble. I would only say, with regard to that, that we recognise the deep sincerity with which he holds his view. Will he not give us credit for holding our views with equal sincerity? It may be incomprehensible to him, but we believe that this is a Bill for the true support of marriage; that it is paring away the anomalies and hardships which have cumbered the marriage law for so many years; that it is a reform which is overdue and which is greatly desired by the great majority of the people of this country; and we hope that by a decisive vote your Lordships will give it a Third Reading to-day.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3a?
The Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Durham, L. Bp.

Greville, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Jessel, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Bath, M.

Addison, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Reading, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Lamington, L.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Latymer, L.

Albemarle, E.

Arnold, L.

Maugham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Melchett, L.

Bessborough, E.

Bethell, L.

Meston, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Blythswood, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Drogheda, E.

Carnock, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Haddington, E.

Cautley, L.

Palmer, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cromwell, L.

Rennell, L.

Midleton, E.

Denham, L.

Roche, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Rowallan, L.

Strafford, E.

Desborough, L.

St. Levan, L.

Wicklow, E.

Doverdale, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Eltisley, L. [Teller.]

Seaton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dawson of Penn, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Snell, L.

Devonport, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Strabolgi, L.

Elibank, V.

Gainford, L.

Teynham, L.

Exmouth, V.

Glanusk, L.

Wright, L.

Mersey, V.

Corell, L. [Teller.]

Samuel, V.

Greenway, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. President.)

Poulett, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Selborne, E.

Holden, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Argyll, D.

Lovat, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Rankeillour, L. [Teller.]

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Rockley, L.

Denbigh, E.

Berwick, L.

Russell of Killowen, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Daryngton, L.[Teller.]

Stafford, L.

Munster, E.

Dormer, L.

Strickland, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 6. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think perhaps I owe the House some explanation as to why, having put down this Amendment again, after having moved it on the Report stage, I do not propose to move it now. On Report I moved the Amendment on the advice of one of the leaders of the Divorce Court. I understand that my noble and learned friend Lord Drogheda has interviewed my friend who is a leader in that Court and has satisfied him. Therefore I will not detain your Lordships by moving the Amendment now.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Eltisley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WATFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.

AMENDMENT OF THE MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Made under subsection (11) of Section and Part II of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, as amended by the Third Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF RAMSGATE ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Ramsgate:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.