moved to omit from Clause 5 the worth "or of separation and aliment." He hon. Member said he had no desire to obstruct the progress of this Bill, which consisted of fifty clauses and several schedules. The Bill, as they were told in Grand Committee, was to codify the law and practice of the Sheriff Courts, a tribunal of ancient origin and analagous to the County Court of England and Wales. No doubt the main provisions of the Bill had that object but there were clauses which admitted no extended and in some cases gave an entirely new jurisdiction, and it was in relation to one of such instances where a new jurisdiction was sought that he proposed the Amendment which stood in his name. As the law in Scotland stood at the present time, the only court which could grant relief in matrimonial causes was the Court of Session, and whether that relief has a decree of separation only or of dissolution of marriage. But the few words which he proposed to strike out would, if retained, make a momentous change in Scotland with regard to the law of marriage. These words, if not left out, would for the first time give the Sheriff Courts the right to make decrees of judicial separation. He had looked into the law of Scotland as to separation and divorce, and he found that it was very similar to that of England. It was of very great importance that they should do nothing to weaken the marriage tie or to enable it to be too lightly dissolved or even loosened. This Bill was very largely founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed by the late Government, the sheriffs, and members of the body of Scottish advocates, as well as Writers to the Signet, had given evidence before the Committee. One witness, Mr. Walter James Lewis, a Writer to the Signet, who was asked as to the prudence of decrees of separation and aliment being placed in the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts, said he thought that if this matter was put into the Sheriff Courts it would make things far too easy for people who had matrimonial difficulties. The witness went on, in the same strain, that it would be a danger to give this jurisdiction to the Sheriff Courts and that it would not be for the good of the parties that they should be able to get such decrees in that court, and that there was no hardship in requiring them to go to the Court of Session, as none had any difficulty there to get an action either on the Poor Law or off it. At present, Scotland did not possess the jurisdiction which was vested in the Justices of the Peace in England to grant separation orders in cases of cruelty. That jurisdiction had been in existence now for some ten years, and he should like the House to know the view of ministers of religion, especially in the East End of London, as to the result of these separation orders, which, without doubt, had honeycombed the East End with immorality, for, in many cases, the separated man and wife lived a life of immorality, often dwelling quite close to each other, though not aware of the fact. The issue of these separation orders had done a great deal to alter the moral tone of the crowded districts. Ministers of religion had found it necessary to speak out in no uncertain tone in regard to the conditions in their different districts, and he felt certain that if a Commission of Inquiry were appointed to go into the subject the information which would be gathered would be such as to make the House pause before it allowed the present condition of things to go on. The object of his Amendment was to prevent the Sheriff Courts from having power to deal with these matters so as to render impossible a similar state of things being produced in the crowded cities of Scotland. The Sheriff Court was essentially a Court for the recovery of small debts, and he submitted that it was most undesirable that it should have conferred upon it power to grant separation orders. It was true that the Bill did not propose jurisdiction to dissolve marriage—but then a decree of judicial separation was but the first step in that direction, and it went a great way towards what was necessary to obtain the fuller decree. It was most desirable to prevent that state of things either in Scotland or elsewhere. In the minutes of evidence taken by the Departmental Committee, the President of the Procurators' Association in Midlothian called attention to irregular marriages, or non-ecclesiastical marriages, and he said that these approached almost to a scandal. In place of the procedure being recognised as a solemn and serious occasion it was rather carried through with a great amount of levity and laxity, and he believed the parties frequently appeared before the sheriff in a state of intoxication. To facilitate release from marriage would be to offer additional inducement to enter into that state carelessly and with indifference They were all aware of the old adage: "Marry in haste; repent at leisure." It was, he submitted, most undesirable that jurisdiction should be given to an inferior Court in matters affecting the marriage laws and marriage vows, and, therefore, he moved the omission of the words "or of separation and aliment," so as to prevent Sheriff Courts dealing with such actions. There were ample means available to a poor man to obtain a certificate enabling him to be put on the Poors Roll, indeed he believed greater facilities than to sue for a decreein forma pauperis in the probate and divorce division of the High Court of Justice in this country. If they wished to deal with the laws of marriage and divorce in Scotland they should deal with them by a substantive Bill, and not in this way. It was most undesirable that a few words should be slipped into a Bill of this sort at the end of the session, making such a drastic change in matrimonial relations in Scotland. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

seconded. Amendment proposed—

In page 3, line 32, to leave out the words 'or of separation and aliment.' " —(Mr. Nield.)

said that his hon. friend moved this Amendment in Committee, and on that occasion he advanced certain reasons against it. The vote of the Committee was against the Amendment. He thought at this stage it would be most inopportune and misleading if he were to enter into%a disquisition upon that very interesting subject in history and romance, the marriage laws. He might be wrong, but he was inclined to think that the hon. Member had not read the actual terms of the Report of the Commission. The Report of the Commission on which this Bill was founded was a most authoritative document, being signed by a former Lord Advocate, a distinguished Judge, and several Sheriffs. It expressly declared that the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts should be extended so as to cover actions for separation, that persons should not be caused the expense o going to the Court of Session in obtaining a separation order, and that this could be done under the judicial procedure of the Sheriff Courts, which was perfectly dignified, regular, and appropriate. It might be the case that an aggrieved person abtained a separation order too easily in England in the magistrate's court, but in Scotland the other extreme was reached, because those who desired separation orders had to go to the Court of Session because they could not use the procedure of the Sheriff Courts. A highly skilled Commission had reported that people should not be driven to the expense of going to the Court of Session to obtain a separation order, and it was upon that recommendation that this Bill was founded. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment.

hoped his hon. friend would not insist upon his Amendment, because he was inclined to think that the arguments he had put forward were based upon a misconception. The Report recommended the adoption of the principle contained in this Bill, and also that the Sheriff Courts should have the power to remit such cases to the Court of Session. He did not know whether power to remit to the Court of Session was given in the Bill He thought his hon. friend would be well advised if he did not press this matter further.

said this was purely a matter of Scottish law, and the Lord Advocate had said that no harm could result from it. At the present time the only way a separation order could be obtained in Scotland was by an application to the Court of Session, which was a very expensive matter. What he wished to point out was that until the change of the law was introduced in England the same state of things prevailed in this country, and the alteration was made to meet cases of hardship where a wife had been bullied and assaulted by her husband. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries he would find that grave doubt existed as to whether the change made in the law in this respect in England had, on the whole, been beneficial. taking all things into consideration. The change had led to a great deal of immorality, and the protection it was intended to give had been much less than w as anticipated. He thought his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment was entitled to ask the House seriously to consider this question in view of what had taken place in this country.

said he agreed that probably they had gone too far in this matter in England. They had, however, proceeded in a much more regular and dignified form in Scotland. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said there were several arithmetical miscalculations which he desired to correct in which the word "ten" had been inserted instead of the word "two." He asked the House assent to this correction being made. Amendments proposed—

In page 34, line 8, to leave out the word, 'ten,' and to insert the word 'two.' "

In the first schedule to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'two.'

In line 12, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word two.'

In line 19, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word two.'

In line 20, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'two.'

In line 22, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'two.'—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)