I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause, which is put forward on behalf of the County Council's Association, was to be moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut. Colonel Acland-Troyte), but he is unavoidably absent, so that it falls to me to move it. I understand that it is an agreed Clause, and it therefore needs very little comment on my part. It extends, as I understand it, to solicitors who are officers of local authorities and who also engage in private practice, so as to exempt them from the provisions of Section 1 of the Bill, so far as their duties to the local authorities are concerned. Their private practice remains unaffected. I think that that is the main point with regard to the Amendment.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word "Society" to the word "shall," in line 7.

This, and several succeeding Amendments, are purely drafting Amendments. Probably it will be for the convenience of the House if I read, once and for all, the Clause as it will appear when the Amendments are added to it:

"The Council of the Law Society shall make rules—

(a) as to the opening and keeping by solicitors of accounts at banks for clients' moneys; and

(b) as to the keeping by solicitors of accounts containing particulars and information as to moneys received, held or paid by them, for or on account of their clients; and

(c) empowering the Council to take such action as may be necessary to enable them to ascertain whether or not the rules are being complied with and may, if they see fit, make rules for regulating in respect of any other matter the professional practice, conduct, and discipline of solicitors.

Provided that rules made under this section shall not come into operation until they have been approved by the Master of the Rolls."

Clause 2, when amended, will read:

(1) If a solicitor fails to comply with any of the rules made under the preceding Section, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the, disciplinary committee.

The remaining Sub-section of Clause 2 is unaffected.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out paragraph (c).

As I understood when this Bill was before the House and before Committee on a previous occasion, it is designed simply and solely to ensure that solicitors shall keep money to which they are beneficially entitled in one account, and money to which they are not beneficially entitled in another account. That is the be-all and end-all of this Bill, as I understand it was put forward by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird). As I read paragraph (c), it goes a very great deal further than that object, which in itself commends my sympathy and support. Paragraph (c) empowers the Council to take such action as may be necessary to enable them to ascertain whether or not the rules are being complied with, and, if they see fit, to make rules for regulating in respect of any other matter of professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors. I am not prepared to say that those final words

"making rules for regulating in respect of any other matter of professional practice, conduct and discipline"

might not be regarded as ejusdem generic with the preceding words. In my submission they are extremely wide, and the Society might make such extensive rules under them that there might be some trouble and difficulty in the future as to whether the rules were made simply and solely for the purpose of ensuring those two different accounts.

I submit to the House that a, rather big principle is involved. Are Societies, no matter what they be, professional or trading organisations, or trade unions, to be given the power to control their members, to make any rules they like in wide terms, to govern the practice, conduct and discipline of those members? Is the Society to be able to say that solicitors' offices shall be open at a certain time in the morning and closed at a certain time in the afternoon?—because that would came under these words. Are they to have the right to say, for example, what vacations shall be given to solicitors' clerks, and the right to make rules as to what amount of pay and what salaries and so forth shall be paid to those clerks, because those words are quite wide enough? Those words go right outside the main purpose of the Bill. I am glad to find that I am not alone in that opinion. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) proposed that a, similar Clause should be put into the Bill with regard to Scotland but, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said:

"I do not think any purpose whatever would be gained by the General Council, with the concurrence of the Lord President, prescribing rules as to how solicitors are to keep their accounts."

I presume that he was speaking as a representative of the Government. He went on:

"The main argument which the hon. Member has put forward is this: He suggested that rules of this kind would form some kind of safeguard against misappropriation of clients' money. If that were so, I would support a Clause of this kind, hut I do not think it would form any safeguard at all."

These are not my words, but they are what the Lord Advocate said speaking presumably on behalf of the Government. He said:

"Misappropriation, or what, to use the technical term, we call embezzlement, is never a thoughtless offence; it is a deliberate offence."

These presumably are the official views of the Government. He went on:

"It is carried out with malice aforethought, to use an English expression, deliberately and in pursuance of an intention to misappropriate money; and merely to put money into an account in the name of a client, instead of the name of the law agent, will not furnish any safeguard at all."

These are the views of the Lord Advocate. With all respect to him, I do not agree with him. The first step that the average solicitor takes with regard to misappropriation of money is an unconscious step. He first of all confuses money to which he is himself entitled with money to which his client is entitled, and that slope is an extremely slippery slope. At the same time, the Lord Advocate finished his observations with some words which are, I think, of general application, and are also of great importance. He said:

"What is wrong to-day in most professions is that there are far too many rules and regulations, and, for my part, I am not in favour of adding to the number."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th May, 1933; cols. 1177–8; Vol. 277.]

The point I wish to make with regard to these words is that they are far too wide for the laudable object which the Bill has in view. I speak with some knowledge of these matters, because, for some years before I was called to the Bar, I was in a solicitor's office, my father was an attorney of the Court of King's Bench, as was my grandfather before him, and my brother is a solicitor to-day. There is only one rule for solicitors to adopt, and they nearly always do it. That is to have their own money in one bank in one account, and their clients' money in another bank in another account. That is a counsel of perfection, but then no such question as setting off debts due from the solicitor to the, bank can possibly give rise to any discussion. A case came into my hands some years ago in which there were three accounts at the bank. One of them, called "No. 1," contained the solicitor's own money; another, called "No. 2," contained his firm's money; and the third, called "No. 3," contained his client's money. The first and second of these accounts were slightly overdrawn. He paid some money of his clients into his third account, and the bank held that money against the overdraft on the other two accounts. If the clients' money had been in a separate bank—which, as I have said, is a counsel of perfection—no such thing would have arisen.

In my opinion the House should hesitate a very long time before it places upon the Statute Book this precedent of authorising the Law Society to empower people—I do not know who they are going to be—to go through the books, presumably, of solicitors. The information in the hands of solicitors is very often not their information, but the information of their clients; very often it is particularly confidential information; and, while I have no doubt that the greatest care will he exercised by the Council of the Law Society to see that information which they acquire under these powers is not abused in any way, it might easily happen that some person might acquire information, under the aegis of this Clause, as to the confidential accounts of a particular person who has handed over his accounts to his solicitors to keep. In these circumstances, I submit that paragraph (c) should not be allowed to pass.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so, not because I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but in order to draw from the Solicitor-General and the promoters of the Bill one or two facts in connection with this paragraph. The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) says he disagrees with the Lord Advocate, but I am venturing to disagree with all the solicitors and barristers in the House this morning, although in the main I think that this is a very useful Bill. I hesitate to intervene, because I know very little about the law, but I found in Committee upstairs that all my failings in regard to knowledge of the law were equalled by the lawyers' ignorance of accounts, and therefore I think I have some right to speak on this matter.

I am torn between two opinions on the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne. I should have thought that the legal profession would, in their own councils, have taken this matter in hand long ago, without bringing it to Parliament. If I may say so, in the case of nearly every well-governed trade union and friendly society the work which its members do for the society is checked, and the agents have to account for all they do on behalf of the society. The real issue raised by this Amendment appears to be that the Law Society, having failed to govern its own affairs and check its own members, now appeals to Parliament to give it authority to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but surely that is what the words of the Bill mean, whatever is intended.

I think it will be found that the Law Society, however willing they might be, could not do this without statutory power.

Then nearly every lawyer must be an anarchist, otherwise they would have met together in conference long ago and would have decided what rules they ought to adopt to govern their profession, and the decisions of their conference ought to he binding upon all the members. I should like to know what the Law Society will do when it gets this power. Will it appoint accountants to go to the office of each solicitor to see that the law in this connection is carried out? I think that that is a proper question to ask. It would be quite new to give authority to any organisation or association to appoint any person to walk into the offices of its members in order to see whether they are carrying out the law. Such persons would in effect be detectives under another name.

With regard to the question of accounts, I think that the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne cancelled himself out when he was speaking about the methods to be employed. He said that the counsel of perfection was that the client's account should be in one bank and the solicitor's own personal account in another bank. But, supposing that there is only one bank in the district, he will be in a difficulty. More than that, I am sure, from my own experience of accounts, that, however many accounts a man may have, unless he is honest he will get over the difficulty and still do the wrong thing. There is, however, a very strong case for the Measure on the other point, that, if solicitors knew that the law compelled them to keep separate accounts, that in itself would be an incentive to them to keep separate accounts, which I think it is the main purpose of the Measure to secure.

I may perhaps be allowed to say, without any offence, that I have often wondered why the legal profession, and especially those of its members with very large businesses—some of them, I understand, employ 40 or 50 people in their offices—have never devised a proper system of accountancy in their offices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I shall be very glad to learn that they have. Hon. Gentlemen are smiling at what I say, as though we are to believe that all is well in the legal profession with regard to accountancy, but, if the suggestion behind their smiles means anything at all, this Bill is unnecessary. I think that the Bill is necessary, but I am torn between two opinions as to how to vote in the event of this Amendment being pressed to a Division. I think, however, that we are entitled to information as to what the Law Society intend to do if they get the powers which will be conferred by the paragraph to which the hon. and learned Gentleman now objects.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making a Third Reading speech in favour of the Bill. I regret very much that he has deserted the underpaid and now gone to the academic branch of the profession. If he had considered the Amendment that he was proposing, he would have found that the Law Society is taking power to make rules, and, if there is no power in the Act to see that they are obeyed, the rules that are made, and of course only made after approval of the Master of the Rolls, would have no effect at all. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, in the majority of solicitors' offices accounts are kept and are kept well, and in the majority of offices audited, and in the majority of solicitors' offices a solicitor's account is already kept. As far as the rules to be made under this Clause are concerned, there is no intention, I believe, of making it compulsory to have auditors. In fact, I have been told that it would be an impossibility to get all the accounts audited at the same time, because that would almost be necessary when certificates were going to be applied for in the ordinary way at the end of the year. The fears of my hon. and learned Friend are unfounded, and his protection, surely, is that any rules to be made under this Clause must have the approval of the Master of the Rolls.

Why is it necessary to take power to make rules in such extraordinarily wide terms as this to effect the main object of the Bill? Under these wide terms, the Law Society might make rules as to which side of their heads solicitors should part their hair, which has nothing to do with the Act at all.

If the Law Society made such a rule, I think they would not be able to put it into operation, as far as I am concerned. I think my hon. and learned Friend has the same sort of fear about other rules that he has about that.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, leave out the words "paid to the Society and credited to their general funds" and insert instead thereof the words, "forfeit to His Majesty."

When this Bill was recommitted, several of my hon. Friends raised objection to the method in which any fines that would be inflicted were to be applied. The Bill provided that they were to be paid into the funds of the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman opposite rather took the view that that would tend to make the Disciplinary Council inflict heavy fines so that they could get large funds. I gave an undertaking that I would consider the point, and I have been able to put down this Amendment, which I understand meets the objection of the hon. Gentleman and others.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for accepting my proposal. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to provide that the money shall go to the High Court, but the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, and he is going to see to it that the fines are to be in forfeit to His Majesty. But there is a point that we are entitled to ask. What is the destination of the fines when we say they shall be forfeited to His Majesty? I am very pleased indeed that the promoters have brought forward this suggestion, because it seemed to me a very strange proceeding that, when a man violates the law of the land and is taken before the court and the court inflicts a fine, the fine should go back to the Law Society That would be a very convenient way for trade unions, not that they break the law more often than the legal profession, but it would be a boon if all the fines that are inflicted on trade unionists came back to trade union funds. It seemed to me that, as the machinery of the State and the courts are employed in order to see that this Act is carried out by the legal profession, it is only fair that the expenses of the court in handling cases shall be met from fines inflicted by the court, I am sure now that I have proved to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I ought to have been a solicitor myself.

The result of this Amendment, I understand, will be that these fines will be treated exactly in the same way as, for example, forfeited recognizances and paid into a special fund.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out the words "which shall have been."

This and the next four Amendments are consequential on Amendments which the House has already approved.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out Subsection (3).

The Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I formally beg to move it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 28 to 34, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Subject to the provisions of this section no bank shall, in connection with any transaction on any account of any solicitor kept with it or with any other bank (other than an account kept by a solicitor as trustee for a specified beneficiary) incur any liability or be under any obligation to make any enquiry or be deemed to have any knowledge of any right of any person to any money paid or credited to any such account which it would not incur or be under or be deemed to have in the case of an account kept by a person entitled absolutely to all the money paid or credited to it.

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall relieve a bank from any liability or obligation under which it would be apart from this Act."

In Committee had two Clauses upon the Paper in a somewhat curious situation, and on the morning we met the Attorney-General had put down another Clause which seemed to be better, and accordingly I did not move them. I said that we had not had much notice of it and that we should keep the door open for further Amendments on the Report stage. I understand that the Bankers' Association, my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill the Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird), and the Attorney-General have had some conversations together and have come to the conclusion that the situation would be more satisfactory if lines 28 to 34 were left out and the words on the Paper were inserted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is true to say that the Amendment has been drafted by the Bankers' Association. The Bankers' Association naturally do not want to have some additional liability put upon the banks in connection with the passing of clients and customers' cheques merely because of additional precautions taken in connection with solicitors. On the other hand, the original Clause put forward would, in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, have made a general amendment of the law in favour of banks which would have been altogether outside the scope of the Bill. It exempted them from the liability which they might have had quite apart from any solicitors' accounts. The object has been to achieve two things, not to extend the bankers' liability in connection with the keeping of solicitors' accounts, and, at the same time, not to exempt them from any liability which at present they may be under apart from the provisions of this Bill. I think it may fairly be said that the Clause meets the case.

I am glad that the Solicitor-General has explained the Amendment. In Committee upstairs there was a proposal, hon. Members will recollect, in which some hon. Members, and, I think, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) actually wanted the banks to do the accountancy work of solicitors.

indicated dissent.

That would have been the ultimate result whatever the intention of the hon. Gentleman might have been. The results of his propaganda do not always coincide with his intentions by the way.

My original proposals were not accepted, and the proposal made by the Attorney-General was accepted.

It amounts to the same thing. However, I am glad that the suggestion has not been accepted and that the banks shall have no liability at all thrust upon them for keeping the accounts separate. That is the business of solicitons entirely.

The law is an honourable profession, and I should not like any Member or hon. Member of this House to think that, in introducing this Bill, I wish to cast any reflection upon many honourable men. The profession, both branches of it, has produced many men who have been very fine citizens, and I trust that it will do the sane in the future. The Bill is really brought in for the purpose of seeing whether it is possible for the Law Society to do anything further to protect clients. I hold the view that all men at the origin are honest. Their intentions are honest, and, if temptation does not come to them, they remain honest. I believe that, if a solicitor had two accounts, as a great number of them already have, he would not draw money which was earmarked for his clients' account. But a solicitor, perhaps a young fellow starting in practice with small means, who has only one account and feels the necessity for drawing money, possibly goes to his cashier or looks at his account and finds that he has, shall we say, £506 in it. He promptly draws, say, £50, whereas if he had had two accounts he would have seen that, instead of there being £50 of his own money, £500 was his clients' money and only £6 was his own money. If the fact had been made clear to him from an inspection of two accounts, he would not have taken the first step on the way to defaulting in regard to the accounts of his clients.

Many hon. Members have suggested that other methods might have been taken than those proposed in the Bill. Those matters have been before the Law Society for many years, and it has not been possible to reach any agreement in respect of them. At one time it was suggested that an official audit should be made. That was not agreed to, and, indeed, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend opposite, it was found to be impracticable. Another suggestion was that there should be a fidelity fund. In spite of the view held by many hon. Members who do not belong to the legal profession, solicitors are not rich men. The average income of a solicitor is comparatively small. He averages between £300 and £400 a year. It would be an imposition if an honest solicitor had to pay out of his small income a large fee to an insurance company for the benefit of the whole profession, possibly to see that some of his competitors who were undercutting him should have protection for their clients at his expense, That was an impossibility. Indeed, if one might put it in this way, if there had been a fidelity fund, it could not have been a very large one although the defalcations are few in number. For many years past the average number of defaulting solicitors has been only 15 out of 15,000 on the roll. That is a very small figure, but unfortunately, some have been very large defalcations, and any guaranteed fund that had been set up in the profession would have been wiped out by any one of them. Therefore, that protection was found to be an impossibility. I do not wish to detain the House further but I desire to thank hon. and right hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for the assistance they have given me in Committee and the assistance they have given me this morning. I know that you cannot make people honest by legislation, but I believe that this Bill will be an advantage to the profession and to the public.

Having regard to the fact that I have in the past introduced several Bills dealing with this matter I think I ought to say a few words on the Third Reading. In the past the Law Society has found it difficult to move owing to disagreement among themselves, and therefore I have taken the invidious course of acting as a private Member and bringing in a Bill. The work now carried out by this Bill has been the object practically of my life for 30 years, and to see it carried out has been a very great satisfaction to me. It is also a very great satisfaction to me to think that the Law Society Council, at last, have taken the matter into their own hands and have had the fortitude to act. I congratulate them and the whole profession on the work that has been done.

I think I shall be voicing the opinions of Members of all parties in congratulating the two hon. Members opposite on piloting the Bill up to the Third Reading stage. I have always felt that the Bill was a very useful one not only for solicitors, who will be compelled to carry out the law and keep separate accounts, but for some of their clients who have gone through such terrible tragedies consequent upon defalcations. I have supported the Bill throughout mainly on that score. One has often seen in the Press accounts of what happens when lawyers do not keep accounts such as the Bill will in future require them to do. One very pleasing feature of the debates on the Measure has been the unanimity of the legal profession in connection with it. There is, indeed, a sort of freemasonry among them when any subject connected with their own profession is raised in the House. All their party political bias and prejudice ceases when any Bill affecting their profession comes forward. I do not blame them. Speaking as an individual Member I feel sure that the community as a whole will be glad to see the Bill become law.

As one who has been in a very minor degree associated with the Bill I want to say how glad I am that it has been possible to bring it to its present stage and that it is to pass on to the Statute Book. Solicitors are not always in agreement. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has probably rather over-emphasised the fact that they have always come together on matters concerning their profession.

I meant unanimity here, not outside.

The Bill is the result of two totally divergent views. Although solicitors unite in defence of their profession they may have very strong and divergent views as to methods of administration and government. Those are definite opinions formed as the result of their practice. Those views were emphasised and expressed very forcibly in regard to the matters contained in the Bill. The happy thing about the Bill is that, those views having been expressed and threshed out between those who differed, the Bill is an expression of unanimity as the result of all the points being considered and every point of view. That is a very happy result.

I desire to add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill, and particularly to congratulate the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Roy Bird) on carrying through this very excellent Measure. We all know the deep interest that he has taken in the matter, and he is to be congratulated not only by the profession but by the general public on the fact that the Bill has been carried through to a successful conclusion. I am also very pleased, and I am sure that my words will be echoed by many hon. Members, and by the profession, that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has been associated with the Bill. In the past he has on occasion taken a rather different view, but I wholeheartedly pay my tribute to him for furthering the interests of the Bill, which may not in every detail agree with some of the views that he has expressed in the past.

In regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I know that now and throughout the course of the Bill he has been concerned not only with the interests of the profession but with the protection of clients. As regards the unanimity of the legal profession, I am sure that as a trade union official he appreciates that this is one of those cases where there is something in the nature of a united front in the profession. It ought to be known that the provincial solicitors are equally in favour of the Bill with those members of the profession who practice in London, as do both my hon. Friends opposite. I hope that the Law Society in drawing up their rules, in concurrence with the Master of the Rolls, will think it right either to submit those rules to the provincial law societies or take their opinion in regard to them. This is a matter on which the profession can unite, along with the general public, in doing a very useful piece of work.

As a potential client, I congratulate the members of the legal profession on their unanimity today. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Roy Bird) has rendered a real public service. On another Measure last Friday I explained how my interest in this subject began. I hope that the Measure will have the effect that is desired. I wished to urge another method instead of that sketched in the Bill, but against that other method my hon. Friend has advanced substantial arguments this morning. I support the Third Reading with the greatest possible pleasure, but that pleasure would be even greater if the last 14 lines of the Bill did not appear. I hope that in due course the profession in this country will be able to persuade their Scottish colleagues to advance along the line of progress along which they are advancing. It is a little unfortunate that the law in the two parts of the United Kingdom is going to be different. It is just as important that Scottish clients should be protected and that Scottish solicitors should be protected. I regard this as a Bill to protect solicitors and not merely to protect the public. Those who practise in Scotland should be protected as well as those who practise in England. There is an English interest, because English people employ Scottish solicitors from time to time. I hope there will be some propaganda done by the more enlightened brethren south of the Tweed among their less advanced brethren north of the Tweed.

Although the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) has said that I have already made a Third Reading speech nevertheless I want to support the Third Reading of the Bill because I do not want my attitude to be in any way misunderstood. The Amendments I put down for the consideration of the House were not in any way untra-critical of the principle of the Bill, and if I did make a Third Reading speech in connection with the proposed omission of Clause 3 I did so rather with a view of testing how far the Bill was to operate, what its scope was to be, and to make it abundantly clear that when Members of the profession do go wrong, they are very few, some of them do so quite inadvertently by confusing money of their own with the money of their clients. I am the last person to oppose the passage of the Bill. The reason why I opposed it in the first place was because as originally drafted it was proposed that the fines to be levied should be given to the Law Society. That was not a, new proposal; it is a very ancient one indeed.

Hundreds of years ago people in a judicial capacity had a financial interest in the amount of the fine inflicted, and I did not want the President of the Solicitors Committee to be placed in the invidious position of ringing up the Treasurer of the Law Society and asking the amount of their overdraft, and, if it was "X" for him to say "the fine in this case is X plus £50, so that it will put us in credit to the extent of £50." That is an extremely undignified position. The administration of justice should always be regarded by the public as being properly carried out, and there would be some uncharitable people who would say that the reason why so and so was fined a large sum of money was because they wanted the proceeds of the fine for themselves. That, of course, would be unfair, but the person who has to approach a decision in a judicial manner, when he —and others—is interested in the financial result, is placed in an invidious position. I am of the opinion that the separation of the two accounts is the first step towards preventing defalcations on the part of solicitors, and for these reasons I heartily support the Third Reading.

Some two years ago at the instance of a group of Members of the House I introduced a Bill on this subject, which was intended to be in the nature of a kite. That led it to certain negotiations with representatives of the Law Society, in which the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) took a leading part. The negotiations continued, and the result has been an agreement of all branches of the legal profession in getting this Bill through Parliament. It is the most satisfactory way of dealing with an unsatisfactory position.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House by a long speech, because I spoke at, I fear, considerable length on the occasion when the Bill was first considered, but I should like to explain to the House the alterations which have been made in the Bill. I brought the Bill before the House, in the first instance, as a skeleton; it has been filled in by the Committee upstairs in such a way as to make it, I believe, a living and organic measure. The flesh which has been put on the bones of the Bill came from the Departmental Committee which considered the question, and I cannot express how greatly I am indebted to that Departmental Committee for their findings. We have accepted every finding of the Committee except one, where they made the question of costs dependent on the means of the appellant and respondent. We have limited it to a question of the means of the appellant. The two main alterations in the Bill are these. In the original Bill we did away with all the recognisances for a person on appeal. As the Bill now stands, it is limited to recognisances to appear and prosecute the appeal with diligence. It was thought by the Committee that it would be unwise to entirely do away with recognisances, but the effect of the change is to alter recognisances from the present high average level of £50 to a sum of £5. If that is to be achieved I realise that it must depend on the discretion of the justices who fix recognisances; but I believe a great advance will have been made in the regulation of appeals to Quarter Sessions.

The second alteration deals with the question of legal aid. In the Bill as first introduced it was provided that if an appellant was without means he should obtain legal aid on appeal. It has been thought wise to limit legal aid on appeal only to questions where the appellant is appealing from 'a conviction. This will exclude all bastardy appeals. It required a great deal of consideration before one could exclude so many of these appeals, but I think that a strong case can be made out for excluding bastardy appeals. They are not primarily a criminal matter, they are in the nature of civil actions, and the law of the land has never allowed a civil action to be financed by the State or a local authority. Personally, I hold the view that bastardy cases and appeals should be taken entirely outside the sphere of courts of summary jurisdiction and put into the sphere of the county court, but I know that all Members of my profession do not share that view, and I expect there are some Members of the House who do not share that view. In any case I will not pursue the subject because it is outside the scope of the Bill. These are the two main changes.

Let me add one word of thanks to the Home Secretary and to the Under-Secretary for the sympathetic help they have given in the consideration of the Bill, and also express my pleasure that the god parent of my Bill, who was absent from his place through illness during its first stages, the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), has now recovered and is here to-day at what I believe is not the christening but the confirmation of the Bill. We owe a great debt to him as a member of the Departmental Committee, and I feel that it is entirely through his efforts in pressing for this reform for so many years in the past that we are now discussing the Third Reading of this Bill. I hope that the House, having been so friendly towards this Bill on previous stages, will now give it a Third Reading so that it can become law.

I wish to support the Third Reading of the Bill and to express my congratulations to the hon. Member for the success which has attended his efforts in connection with this very important subject. I think I am right in saying that it is one of the first things that I myself raised when I came into this House many years ago. It has been a crying grievance for a very long time, although a great deal of that grievance was underground and was not seen publicly. The progress of this Bill to its present stage has been very rapid. Thanks and congratulations are due to the Government for the way in which they have tackled this question. Those of us who have been associated with the question have raised it on several occasions. We tried in vain to get from previous Governments anything beyond a sympathetic remark which led to nothing. We tried to get Governments to inquire into it, but we got only promises of a very vague character. Last year we got a very definite promise of the appointment of a Committee from the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who was then Home Secretary, and later that promise was implemented by the present Home Secretary.

That Committee was composed of men of unrivalled experience in connection with these matters; and it is a source of pride to those of us who belong to the Northern Circuit that one of our greatest leaders, Sir Francis Taylor, was able to act as chairman of that Committee and bring its labours to such an excellent result. We know how on That Committee he had magnificent support from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers).

Let me say a few words about the provisions of the Bill. There has always been a feeling, even among those who are most enthusiastic in support of the Bill, as to the possible risk of frivolous appeals. Many of us think that that was not a very big risk, but at the same time there were very few of us who would venture to say that there was not a risk. The committee in their report have found a procedure which will contribute very largely to minimise that risk. They have done away with the serious evil of the recognisance, the recognisance which was entered into not merely to prosecute an appeal but also to carry out any order that might be made by quarter sessions, which meant, of course, the payment of costs. The result of that was that recognisances were of such a nature as to be a complete bar to appeal in the case of poor people. The committee very wisely did away with that type of recognisance, but by providing that there shall be a recognisance I think they have brought home to possible appellants the fact that entering upon an appeal is a serious matter not to be taken lightly. A recognisance, it is true, is to prosecute the appeal, and the extent to which that recognisance can be demanded is limited by the means of the appellant. The fact that the recognisance has to be entered into will make people think before they enter an appeal, and with the good sense of the great population of the country my opinion is that the 'solemnity of entering into a recognisance to prosecute an appeal will be quite sufficient to deter people from lightly entering upon frivolous appeals.

Without full provisions regarding poor persons this Bill might have failed in its object. One is happy to feel that we have in the Bill now complete provision for support of the appellant of slender means. If ever there was a Bill for poor persons, this is such a Bill. It is a part of the State's duty to see that, however poor a man may be, the gates of justice are not closed to him. With the Bill in its present form those gates will be ever open to him, and there will be complete provision for his being properly and adequately represented before the Appeal Court. My hon. Friend has said something about the application of these conditions to cases of conviction. From experience I do not think that any great harm will come from the fact that the powers are so limited, because in the other cases he has spoken of, bastardy cases, as far as I can make out wherever there is a real case for appeal there are societies who make it their duty to look after such appeals. I do not think that there is serious risk that a woman in difficulties will be without adequate representation on such an appeal. Of course with regard to convictions it was absolutely essential that this help should be given, and the provisions in the Bill render it possible to give that help, and no appellant and no appeal will fail for want of proper assistance being given to the court which has to try the appeal.

With regard to the rest of the provisions I think that everyone concerned with the administration of justice is thankful to the Government for having inserted in the Bill provisions which will make for the convenience of parties. The procedure of quarter sessions sometimes results in the delay of appeal trials. Under this Bill ample provision is made to avoid delay. Provision is made by which appeals may be brought to trial within a reasonable time. Speed rather than haste is of vital importance, and the Bill provides ample opportunities for there being no delay of any sort in the administration of justice. It is a matter for congratulation that we are now removing that grievance. It may be rather a sad reflection that it has taken a very long time indeed to get the grievance removed, but we may now congratulate ourselves upon the fact that it is being removed. The last possible obstacle to the poor person getting complete justice is removed by the Bill.

I rise to support this Bill, not because I am entirely in agreement with all that has been said that this provides completely and amply for all the difficulties that exist, but because I feel that the work which has been undertaken by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, and the support which has been given to it by the Government, should command the full approval of all who are in this House, and that certainly we should give an opportunity to this Measure to be put into operation, so that at a later stage, possibly, we may get the other difficulties removed. In the course of the Committee stage I raised a number of questions on Amendments, but for certain technical reasons and in order to assist this Measure to pass through the House, and not because I was convinced that those Amendments were by any means unnecessary, I withdrew the Amendments.

It is only right that, in the first place, mention should be, made of the fact that in this House not only have the Government, but very prominent Members of my own party from time to time have urged the necessity of a Measure of this description. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has fel for many years that the position with regard to the procedure in respect of appeals in the courts of summary jurisdiction requires amending, and he has on numerous occasions not only stated this in the House but in public, and has certainly exhibited a very keen interest in it. Another hon. Gentleman on these benches moved a Motion for legal reform which I had the privilege of seconding, and on which occasion I referred at length to this evil which existed, and the necessity of improving the conditions that prevail.

We all feel that the time is ripe for an amendment in respect of appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction. We have always felt that it was an absurdity that when 600,000 cases came before the courts of summary jurisdiction, only some 200 or, at the outside, 300, actually went to appeal. In proportion to the number of cases that go to appeal from other courts, it is ludicrous to believe that out of so many persons who are brought before the court, there are so few who honestly believe themselves to be dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal. I am not entirely satisfied that an appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction to a quarter sessions is altogether the best manner of settling the difficulty, because it is perfectly clear that a court of summary jurisdiction sometimes contains men of much greater legal knowledge on the bench than on occasions one finds at quarter sessions. It is also perfectly obvious that on innumerable occasions there are sitting in the courts of summary jurisdiction men of extreme knowledge in the law. Indeed, I understand that among them are included one of our Judges and also men of equal standing and knowledge in the law.

I am not satisfied that the extension of seven days for appeal is itself sufficient in regard to lodging the appeal. I certainly think that the opportunity of a longer time should be given and that it would be found in practice that at least 21 days should be given to enable a person to decide whether he ought to appeal from a conviction which has been registered against him. After all, many people are prepared to bear convictions, even although they may be wrong convictions, to avoid the trouble and expense of proceeding to appeal, and they ought to be given an ample opportunity to decide whether it is better to

"bear those we have,

Than fly to"

the possibility of being relieved of those evils. I am not convinced that a layman would be sure as to the persons on whom to serve the notice of appeal. The Bill says that a man has to serve the clerk of the court, and he has to serve the opposite party. There are many cases in which the opposite party is not so clear to the layman as one might hope so that the individual could serve his notice in a proper manner. I am also not convinced that the solicitor ought not to have the right to appear at quarter sessions. I am not sure that it can be incorporated in the Bill later on, but it is obvious that in many cases—with the greatest respect to my learned Friends in this House and outside—the solicitor's knowledge of a case which he has been conducting in a lower court is not only greater, because he happens to have better experience, perhaps, of that type of case, but also because he has been in the court at the time the case was taken, he knows the atmosphere which prevailed, and not only knows what has been said, but how it has been said.

They have the right to appear at quarter sessions if quarter sessions so decide. It is entirely a matter for quarter sessions.

I know that, of course, but it is a question of the quarter sessions themselves deciding as to the right of a solicitor to appear or not. I should like to say, in response to my hon. Friend, that I am not aware of a large number of cases in which quarter sessions have granted that right to a solicitor. In my own experience I must say that I cannot recollect a single case in which I have actually seen it done. I have heard of it. It is a matter of regret to me, but one which I feel compelled in the circumstances to concede for the time being. Then there is the question of bastardy appeals. It means much to the individual concerned. There are many cases in which a conviction and its incidence are of a very much less serious nature to a person. There are cases in which a person has an affiliation order made against him, and I certainly think that that is a matter which in the future should be given consideration again. Possibly if another hon. Member has the good fortune to be successful in the Ballot, he will take advantage of the opportunity to introduce a further Bill in order to cope with that difficulty.

There is also the difficulty in respect of cases stated. I have on a previous occasion explained my views with regard to that and it is not necessary to delay the House upon it on this occasion. But the complicated procedure which is involved in connection with cases stated ought to be modified—indeed it might almost be put out of existence—so that the poor person would have an opportunity of appealing in that manner as well as under the provisions of this Bill. These are a few of the difficulties which present themselves and which will, I fear, continue. There is also the question of recognisances and what has satisfied some of my hon. and learned Friends in that respect does not entirely satisfy me. It is all very well to say that recognisances are to be fixed at such a rate as is reasonable and in accordance with the means of the person concerned. But that condition applies also to fines and maintenance orders. There is a provision which says that the court must fix maintenance orders or fines in accordance with the means of the person concerned. I am not sure whether that rule is not honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

No!

Well I do not wish to offend the susceptibilities of my hon. Friend as I am a member of the same profession, and I will withdraw any suggestion that it is not generally observed. But I think there are cases in which that rule is not observed and the same thing might prevail in connection with these recognisances. Then, I had hoped that there would be something in the Bill to enable persons to appeal direct to a judge in chambers. That proposal does not seem to meet with the approval of some of my hon. Friends but after all a judge in chambers must be considered to have a full knowledge of the law and a considerable amount of experience and to be able to give a decision of a reasonable and just nature. Something might have been done by this Bill to give an appellant the opportunity of going to a judge in chambers with what the judge might consider to be a reasonable objection against a decision of the lower court. The portion of the Bill which deals with relief to be granted to poor litigants is of extreme value and I am convinced that a large number of people will benefit considerably from it. Taking the whole matter on balance I hope that hon. Members will facilitate the passage of the Bill and that the opportunity will be taken, on a future occasion, of rectifying the errors and difficulties which I have pointed out by a, further Bill extending the provisions of this Measure in other directions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), not only on having introduced the Bill, but on having accepted suggestions, which though they may not have complied fully with all his desires, go a long way towards meeting them.

It may meet the con- venience of the House if I make a short statement on behalf of the Government at this stage. I do not intend to follow hon. Members who have spoken earlier, in a detailed consideration of this Bill. I desire only to deal with one matter and that is the expense of the Bill. It will be recalled that when the Bill received a Second Reading I warned the House on behalf of the Government in regard to the possible cost of the Measure. I made a request to the Departmental Committee which was considering the question of appeals from decisions of courts of summary jurisdiction to investigate the problem of expense. I have here a copy of their report and I find in paragraph 16 the following passage:

"We have no doubt that you will wish us to give an estimate of the cost to public or local funds which our recommendations may be expected to involve. It seems, however, that it is impossible to furnish any such estimate since there is no material from which it is possible to anticipate the number of appeals by poor persons which may result."

That means that nobody can give even an approximate idea of the cost of the Measure. In consequence of that statement, and in consequence of the failure of the Home Office to get any approximate estimate, the Government desire to make it abundantly clear that although they will do nothing to-day to prevent the Bill from reaching the Statute Book, nevertheless, as the cost is so uncertain, the operation of the Measure must be in the nature of a trial rather than a definite and permanent piece of legislation. If there should be a large number of frivolous appeals or if the cost for some other reason proves to be excessive, then the Government reserve to themselvs the right to introduce and pass into law any necessary amending legislation at a later period. I give this warning not in a spirit of hostility to the Bill, but rather in a spirit of hope and belief that the Measure will not, in practice, prove to be an extravagant one. It is the earnest desire of the Government that the Measure should be reasonable in cost and at the same time of real benefit and assistance to those who feel compelled to take advantage of its provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) will accept that statement in the good faith in which it is made. In conclusion I join with other hon. Members in congratulating him on the successful termination of his determined efforts.

I take this opportunity of thanking again the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W Greaves-Lord) for the kind words they have said in regard to my action in the past, in bringing in a Bill similar to this, though in a slightly different form. It was on that original Bill that the Home Secretary promised the Departmental Committee which afterwards considered the matter and upon which I served. The only question to which I desire to refer on this occasion is the question of frivolous appeals. If everybody were to appeal it would be a serious matter indeed and would cost the country a great deal, but the Departmental Committee came to the conclusion, after considerable discussion, that in all probability the Bill would not result in any such large cost. As has been pointed out already the recognisances are not done away with absolutely but only in so far as the payment of the costs of the other side is concerned. There is a certain amount of formality which has to be carried out and which means, as I think, that the bona fides of the appellant will have to be vouched for by somebody else.

Therefore, I think myself that the result will not be a very great expense to the country. Those who support the Bill quite appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, of course, if it turns out that the Measure is abused by the making of frivolous appeals in a great many cases, the whole matter will have to be reconsidered and some way of checking the frivolous appeals adopted. I whole-heartedly support the Bill.

As one who has had the pleasure of being associated with the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) in introducing the Bill, I want to say how much the consideration and sympathy of the Government have been appreciated. While endorsing the observations that have been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), it is clear that this Bill goes almost the whole way to remove an anomaly which, for a long time, has been wholly indefensible, and while it opens the gate to everybody to get the justice to which they are entitled in this country, it does indeed take away one of the very last remaining stigmas that exist in connection with the administration of justice in this country. The points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) are, I think, wholly unnecessary apprehensions on his part. The time to appeal is quite adequate, and the injustice about which we have complained so long arose, not from the time in which an appeal had to be made, but in respect of the onerous and very often intolerable conditions which were placed upon people who might desire to appeal against convictions which they thought were wrong. It was tantamount to giving to the summary courts the right of barring any appeal against the decisions which they had given.

With regard to the suggestion that the Bill might have incorporated similar treatment in relation to cases stated, I think it only right to say that there is no likelihood whatever of injustice arising in respect of the decisions of these summary courts upon which it is desired to have a case stated. It is a different class of conviction altogether on which cases are stated. I think the Solicitor-General dealt conclusively with those points in Committee and showed that the suggestions were entirely without foundation. This is a Bill which, I hope, will go through speedily, and while again expressing gratitude to the Government for what they have done to assist my hon. Friend, who so courageously and skillfully introduced and piloted this Bill, one quite appreciates that it will have to he watched so as to see whether appeals are made that are frivolous. I think the restrictions which still exist would prevent too free a flow of appeals.

I certainly feel that what has been put into the Bill is the best and fairest safeguard that could have been devised to give justice to the citizens of this country and at the same time to watch such interests of the State as must be watched and as are not inconsistent with the administration of true justice. Of all courts where there ought to be a ready appeal from decisions which convict a man in this country, I think the police court stands first. That right of appeal has for a long time been blocked, and this Bill will give a new chance to those who have not got the facilities and are barred by existing restrictions, and will give to everybody the same standard of justice. I am glad to have been associated with this Bill in some small measure, and I express the hope that it will become the law of the land in the course of a very short time.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) opened his remarks last week by referring to the correspondence which he had received in respect of this Bill. Since I have ventured to differ from these proposals in this House, I too have received a spate of letters, which have revealed to me an outlook upon life and upon marriage that is indeed novel and that in no sense persuades me to waver from the position which I have taken up. I have been assured that my opposition is not only fatuous and silly, which I suppose is common form to all opposition, but also that it is actuated by a sadistic tendency —a theory of life that those who maintain the status quo and appreciate the value of stability in English life and in our marriage laws maintain that position for the delight which they receive in watching the sufferings of others under that condition of stability.

Then I am informed that those who are trying to oppose this Bill are desirous of continuing people in the position of men or women linked by the State to mad bulls or mad dogs. It is a pity that the word "mad" comes into this Debate, for if hon. Members had had to visit, as I have, at asylums, they would realise that the word "mad" in its popular connotation, is the very last word to use in these Debates. The atmosphere of modern asylums is in no sense like that of the old Bedlam houses. The patients there are quiet, orderly, intelligent, and clean in their ways, and quite a small percentage of them are in any sense violently and unpleasantly mad; and if their life is short, to those this Bill makes no appeal.

I cannot see any provision in this Bill by which a learned judge shall be assisted in dealing with the difficulties of medical certification by any qualified assessor. It is common form in approved society practice for medical certification to be attacked by those more trained in accountancy or in public life. Medical certification has a tradition of its own, a language of its own, and, I am assured, a handwriting of its own. Medical certification, can mean much or little, according to the standing of the certifier and according to the intention of those handling the document, and it world be some satisfaction to me, not that that is of great importance, and to those interested in the machinery of justice if one were certain that the courts working under this new Bill would be assisted by eminent specialists. In these days, it is rather an intolerable thought that the privilege of dispensing with an unhappy insane spouse should be a privilege of the rich. I am certain that medical certificates that may cost the fabulous fee of 6d. will not move a court to grant a divorce, but I see no provision in this Bill—it may be arranged by the procedure of the courts already, though of that I am ignorant—by which poor people seeking this alleged relief can receive expert medical assistance, so that the state of their spouse may be properly and not casually presented to the court. If that provision is not made in this Bill it might indeed appeal to Henry VIII and those who might be counted in that category, but it is no use to the asylum population of husbands and wives, for they are such poor people. In that sense this is a privilege Bill.

There is one point of medical detail on which I am sorry to detain the House, but it will be in the knowledge of most Members that a large part of the asylum population is made up of people in a condition of senile decay. I put to the House seriously the position that men who are elderly are by no means convinced that their marriage days are over. Widows becoming senile can easily and I think quite properly be put under public care, but think of the temptation of the enterprising younger woman to remind the elderly husband that his wife suffering from senile dementia, is, in the words of the Royal Commission, for all purposes, save physiologically, dead. We shall find an increased pressure put upon the public authorities to take away senile cases, to remove wives from husbands in order that husbands may venture afresh into the land of matrimony. I do not think that that is an attractive proposal to any sane senile husband, and it is in their interest that this avenue of a new life should be shut to them.

It is sad to see, the way in which to-day parental and other responsibilities are being shelved. Those of us who work among multitudes of people, such as is necessary in hospital life, are repeatedly brought against the singular carelessness for parental and blood responsibility. Parents come to us and demand that their "dead" children shall remain children of the State. They insist that their beautiful daughters shall be taken off their hands so that their life may clear of the responsibilities which are theirs. This Bill seems to me another expression of this modern demand of freedom from natural and inescapable and quite proper responsibility. The State is indeed a stepmother, whose arms are open to the full extent of public ability to bear taxation, but this Bill is another burden put upon the back of the public. Nothing was more apparent in the evidence given to the Royal Commission than the fact that many applications will be made for the dissolution of these marriages in the hope that the partner who is well may be free of the financial responsibility of maintaining husband or wife. The public authorities at present can recover some part of this expenditure, but it is dubious whether or not the public authority will, if the marriage be dissolved by the court, be able then to recover the cost of maintenance.

It is a more wholesome thing to prevent a trouble than to attempt to undo it. The more easy we make egress from the marriage bond the more lightly will it be entered upon. We have been reading only recently in the newspapers of the disgraceful facility with which marriages can be arranged in London in order that those who pursue illegal and improper avocations may remain in this country although they are aliens. It is reported by the police that marriages are arranged on a businesslike footing for a fee of £100 a marriage. Degenerates, those of weak mind, and those of criminal propensities can all too easily enter into marriage, and, if the exit from marriage is too easy, its entry will be too easy also. Marriage is a solemn contract. It involves in our present outlook on life lifelong responsibility, and it will be bad for this country if the common thought of the people should be contaminated by the idea that marriage is a terminable contract of no responsibility and that the State can shoulder all the troubles that may ensue.

There are fathers and mothers in England who look upon this Bill as a bad Bill. We have children who are the apples of our eye, sons and daughters dear to us, and we hope that when they enter the marriage state they will enter upon it with a partner who will be to them a faithful companion and a devoted and lifelong spouse. It will be tragic if we grow old with the knowledge that our children may enter upon marriage with all the ardour and hopefulness of youth, and yet knowing that this contract is unfortunately easily terminable; and that we in our old age may see a daughter perhaps unfortunately in an asylum with the status of a married woman in our eyes but, in the status of English law, dead in all but physiological properties, and our son-in-law wedded to another spouse. The proposition to me is revolting. When I spoke last week I raised my points in opposition simply as' a result of my own experience of life. The hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill referred to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Divorce, and I was astonished to find how little the position of my profession has changed since this Commission reported. At the risk of boring the House, I would like to bring up to date certain small parts of this Report. I will quote from page 182, where, in the Minority Report, it says:

"Insanity as a ground for divorce is unique in this respect, that it inflicts dissolution of marriage on a spouse for mis- fortune, and that even in cases where the insanity is really due to the fault of the other spouse who is seeking divorce. Unkindness and conduct producing distress may be quite incapable of legal proof, and perhaps only known to the unfortunate victim, and yet may be an effective cause of breakdown.

It is one of the marks of progress of the last half century that insanity has come to be recognised as bodily disease and to be treated accordingly. It is surely a retrograde step to single out insanity only as a ground of divorce while the Majority Report does not venture to recommend that, for example, epilepsy or paralysis should be so treated."

The Report goes on to emphasise,

"The great majority of experts on mental disease who gave evidence were very decidedly opposed to the proposal to make insanity a ground of divorce. This majority included four Commissioners in Lunacy, the Lord Chancellor's Visitor and a specialist of quite unique authority on this subject, Sir George Savage. His evidence is well summed up in his final answer: There is no doubt of the individual hardship, and that I have felt. I entered upon it with a feeling, I must say, rather in favour of divorce, but the more I have considered the individual reports from these people, and the more I have considered my own 40 years' experience, I cannot help thinking that there is not ground enough to justify the alteration.' We cannot admit that evidence of this character should be brushed aside as it is in the Majority Report on the singular ground that witnesses such as Commissioners in Lunacy and medical officers of asylums ' would object to any enactment which might prejudice in any way the welfare and comfort of those under their charge.' That is extremely probable, but we may be permitted to add that they are also the best judges of what would be prejudicial to the welfare and comfort of those under their care'."

If in opposing this Bill I can do anything to prevent an action that would be prejudicial to the comfort and welfare of the insane then I am only carrying out what is the bounden duty of my profession, to care first of all for their sick, and to be tireless in preventing the interruption into the field of curative medicine or any action which may turn curable insanity into an incurable affliction.

One of the prices we pay for the pace of modern life is the growth of neurosis, so that many people live in a, state of inexplicable and almost incomprehensible fear. Those of us who have to practise in coroners' courts realise that the tide of suicide is increasing. It is quite easy by fear and by ill-treatment to turn neurosis into insanity. Think of the state of the frightened neurotic who, apparently normal, is carrying out his daily work in the world but who has behind him always the spectre of insanity, and if to that spectre of insanity, which haunts him, is the added fear that the wife of his bosom, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, is, should this calamity happen to him, to be the spouse of another, then another terror will be added to his unhappy life, and the tide of suicide must necessarily increase. I and many of my brothers live daily in close contact with these people, and I am not dealing with a speculative side of the question. I am perfectly certain that should this Bill go through that mass of neurotics will be made more unmanageable.

This Bill was proposed to us with the suggestion that the opposition was religious. If that be so, that opposition is by no means to be neglected on that account. The difficulties and struggles between Church and State have been going on from the dawn of human history. It was said that William the Conqueror, when he sacked all the Saxon bishops and archbishops, held in his hand all the croziers of England. There was no claim made by William the Conqueror that was not made by all the kings, until they were made effective in King Henry VIII, who perhaps would be more interested in this Bill than any Member of this House. I cannot let the occasion pass without referring to a lapse on my part when in mentioning last week the Lords Spiritual whose presence must hover over this Debate, I made no reference to the great Cardinal Wolsey, whose intervention in a nullity of marriage led him to a most unhappy end, and opened a new Chapter in English Church and civil history. I am perfectly certain that, courageous as is the mover of this Bill, he has no desire to open another great and momentous chapter in our history of the struggle between Church and State.

The struggle over the delimitation of what is governed by ethics and what is governed by civil expediency is part of the make-up of man, who is in part spirit and in part body, and a Committee of this House is no place in which that struggle should be fought out. Here in this House there is ample evidence of the religious condition of public life. As Members enter this House they recall to our memory, by their bows, the old altar that once stood in Westminster Hall. We open our proceedings with prayer. We profess publicly that we are guided and guarded in all our doings by Almighty providence. To suggest that the marriage law is a fortuitous expedient convention, which may be altered as men think fit, is a proposition that is truly audacious, and quite out of touch with the traditions of this House and England. The Bill deals with only one of the proposals of the Royal Commission and why it has been selected I could not say, but it will be within the recollection of the House that the Royal Commission on Divorce proposed not only that incurable insanity but also cruelty, habitual drunkenness and even desertion for three years should be material for an effective divorce. There has been no explanation—