There is not much that we desire to say with reference to the Third Reading of this Bill. Various questions of principle were discussed at some length in Committee, and we still have feelings of anxiety about the Bill. I think it is not unfair to say that every Minister who has spoken on it has demonstrated with tolerable clarity that no Minister on the Front Bench really knows whether this Bill covers ownership and, if so, to what extent. We can only hope, on behalf of the people of this country, that the Civil Service understand the Bill. But whatever anxieties we feel about the principle we feel quite sure that the general situation is much better with the Bill than without it.

The Prime Minister said, when he first gave notice that the Bill would be introduced, that it was to facilitate the carrying out of the major Bill. Some of us had a suspicion that it was intended to delay that major Bill, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will say once again that it is the intention of the Bill to bring about the operation of the major Measure at a very early date.

On the Committee stage I raised the point, and the Secretary for Mines gave me an assurance in regard to it, that I hoped that when the major Bill came forward the terms of the register would be such as to enable this House to deal with the thorny problem of way-leaves and rents. The Secretary for Mines gave me an assurance on the Committee stage that wayleaves and rents which are associated with coal would be registered, and we want it to be possible to deal with them when the major Bill comes forward.

In reply to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in the words that I used the other day in Committee, the Bill covers all these different services if held in association with coal. As regards the other hon. Members, I can only repeat, what the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister have said, that it is our intention to proceed as quickly as may be with the main Measure, and this is an interim proposal in order that registration may be carried forward with that end in view.

I beg to move:

"That the Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, which were presented to this House on the 16th day of July, 1937, be approved."

This is, if I may so term it, a piece of domestic legislation by the Milk Marketing Board. There have to be certain adjustments in the scheme to provide for its easier running and more efficient administration. The House will be aware of the procedure which is necessary before these Amendments can have effect, and I will briefly detail what has happened with regard to the matter. Before Amendments of this character can become effective, they have a number of fences to jump, and these particular Amendments started on their career in May, 1936, when a copy of the draft Amendments was sent to each registered producer. There was a poll on the question whether or not the Amendments proposed by the Board should be submitted to the Minister, and the poll resulted in the following figures: There were 44,000 producers voting, and 87 per cent. of them were in favour of the submission of the Amendments. Accordingly, in July, 1936, the Board submitted the Amendments to the Minister, and then the appropriate period of six weeks was left for the lodging of objections. Some 16 persons or associations objected, and a public inquiry was in consequence ordered, which was held by Mr. N. L. Macaskie, K.C. The proceedings lasted 20 days, and the Commissioner's report was finally received and considered. As a result of that consideration, certain modifications were made by me in the Amendments as originally proposed, but these Amendments have been assented to by the Milk Board, and what the House has in front of it to-day is an expression of the Milk Board's desire for certain Amendments in its scheme so as to ensure more efficient and better operation.

There is a great number of these Amendments, but I think that if I draw attention to one or two of the important ones that affect a larger number of producers than do the others, the House may take it from me that the rest of them are mere machinery improvements, on which, with the permission of the House, I will answer questions later if required. The first is Amendment 1, which deals with the position of the four-cow wholesaler. A producer-retailer who owns four cows or less has always been within this scheme. The wholesaler with four cows has not. It was anticipated in the original scheme that these persons would not make any substantial contribution to the supply of milk and might with safety be ignored, but experience has shown that that hope was not justified. There are one or two things that have happened which make this Amendment, in my view, a good one. There has been a good deal of administrative difficulty in determining who has four cows and who has not; in other words, it has been found possible by some producers who own perhaps 20 or 12 cows to split up the nominal ownership of these animals into sections of four, held in the names of members of the family or friends, and consequently quite large herds have been used from time to time in this way to supply milk enjoying exemption from this scheme. There was only one objection to this Amendment by an individual during the hearing, and I do not think he was very persevering with it. The next matter of importance is Amendment 9, dealing with tuberculin-tested milk.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal first with Amendment 2.

This merely gives power to the Board to regulate the manner in which milk may be graded and so on by or on behalf of traders and producers, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any question to raise on it, I shall be glad to reply to his observations later, with the permission of the House. I am well aware of the deep knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, but I prefer, before going into what is a matter of machinery of this complexity, to hear the particular points of criticism which he has to raise. In proceeding to deal with the matter of tuberculin-tested milk, I would say that the producers of this commodity are now brought into the scheme for the first time, and the object is to secure that this high quality milk shall be marketed through the national organisation, under conditions which, I think, should encourage the continued production of this valuable article. The conditions are set out in the Amendment, and I think they are generally of such a character as to provide encouragement to producers of tuberculin-tested milk to go on with their production and to increase it.

The third Amendment to which I would draw attention deals with the matter of the producer-retailers. The Board has come to the conclusion that under the present arrangement these constituents of theirs, who are mostly small men, are being asked to make a contribution to the general fund of the scheme which is excessive, and they therefore propose this Amendment, which will result in smaller contributions being paid by producer-retailers.

How much?

This applies to England and Wales. The contributions of producer-retailers in England and Wales now vary from month to month and from region to region, the average being between 2d. and 3d. per gallon. It will be fixed for producers of ordinary milk at 1½d. to be paid in 14 days, and if it is not paid in 14 days, it will be 1¾d. For accredited producers the contribution will be reduced to ¾d., and for tuberculintested milk producers to ½d. I think that this Amendment has the general support of the industry in common with the other Amendments.

The occasion of moving a long series of Amendments to perhaps the largest and most important marketing scheme in operation seems rather to call for a somewhat longer and more explanatory statement than we have received from the Minister. At least, that is how it appeals to those of us who have been concerned with all the details of the matter, and have had to spend a long time in much detailed representation and examination before the public inquiry and in other directions. While I think that the Amendments as they are presented to the House for approval are less objectionable than some of the Amendments as they were originally put to the Minister before he ordered a public inquriy, I do not think that we can approve them, as we have to do under this procedure, without saying a word about them.

The first Amendment to which the Minister drew attention was Amendment 1. I do not think that calls for much comment. It is just as essential a piece of legislation as it would be to have an Amendment to the Finance Bill to avoid tax evasion. There is no doubt that in the Milk Marketing Scheme there has been a fair amount of evasion which has been difficult for the officers of the board to check. If you are to have a central pooling system in which the general position of the industry is improved by carrying the losses collectively, there ought to be no loophole for escape by devices of the kind to which the Minister referred and which, I think, were fairly clearly proved before the public inquiry. I regret that the Minister did not say a good deal more about the second Amendment. He appeared from his explanation to think that this Amendment was concerned only with the grading of the commodity. We ask him to look at the Amendment in detail. It

"gives the board power to regulate the manner in which milk may be graded by or on behalf of registered producers and the manner in which milk is to be marked, packed, stored, adapted for sale, insured, advertised, or transported by or on behalf of registered producers."

There is a significant change in the intention of the board with regard to the exercise of their powers because of this Amendment, and I should be surprised if the Minister has not had the effect of the change put before him by his advisers. In the past, in dealing with the trans- portation problems in connection with other schemes, he may be aware of the grave difficulties which arise in, for example, the case of the bacon and pig industry, where a sudden arrangement was made, under powers which were not really there, for a flat rate transport scale. Under this arrangement the railway companies were able to collect money from owners of road transport who collected or delivered their own pigs but had to pay the railway company a varying charge per pig for the right to use their own vehicles in order to convey the animals.

If the Minister has been properly advised as to the result of the Amendment which is now before the House, I think he will have to agree that that is the intention of the change in the scheme with regard to the actual transportation of milk. If he wants an incident brought to his notice as to how this will operate in the case of milk, he will have no difficulty in finding from his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland one which happened in connection with the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme in 1934. There a large dealer of milk in a large milk area, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, was under regular contract for supplying its own shareholding members with milk, having a long and well-known connection between the milk producers of South West Scotland and the distributive agencies controlled by co-operative consuming members. There were two of the largest distributive societies—St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh, and Kinning Park, Glasgow—which were regularly supplied with a balance of accommodation milk from that quarter. Suddenly, the Scottish Milk Board instructed the Wholesale Society to stop its supply to the retail societies on the ground that they considered that some small fraction of transport charge could be saved by drawing on other sources of supply. This left this body, which had its contract running with large numbers of Scottish producers in South-West Scotland, with no other alternative but to turn this milk into manufacture, and thus to put a contributory loss upon the pool which, in our judgment, far out-weighed any practical saving that might have occurred in transport charges.

That interference between two parties to a contract is a grave fact, and we feel that, unless the administration of this Amendment is very carefully handled and properly watched, we may have the same kind of difficulties arise here as we had afterwards in the case of the pig and bacon scheme. I feel that one of the difficulties with which we have to contend under the marketing schemes, all set up with the finest objectives, is that caused when you get a scheme which is controlled only by producers, and the powers in the scheme are arranged almost entirely from that angle. If they are not properly drawn at the beginning, you almost certainly get friction, and that friction does not end merely in a verbal row. It usually ends in expensive public inquiries, if not in actual litigation costs. The costs in connection with these schemes up to the moment run into fairly big figures, if you take the total applying not only to milk but to all the other schemes that are in operation. There is a real danger to be watched in that connection. While, unfortunately, we are not permitted under the procedure of the Act of 1931 to move Amendments to this document, I think we are entitled to have certain assurances on this transport question.

There is another point to which the Minister did not refer in his statement, and that is the difficulties which will arise in regard to insurance. Here, again, I must draw upon my experience of the use of insurance powers under a marketing scheme for another commodity. Some two or three years ago there was much difficulty regarding the insurance of pigs which were being transported to bacon-curing factories. The Marketing Board, without any consultation or previous notice, suddenly prescribed that the insurance of all pigs under the scheme was to be done through one insurance company, who were thereby given a complete monopoly, although many of the traders connected with the scheme who were doing all they could to make it work satisfactorily had their own arrangements and, in certain cases, had their own insurance organisation. I know there was a committee of investigation in that case, but although there has been no real advantage in imposing heavy insurance charges for insurance of milk in transport it is most significant that for some reason or another the same powers are being taken with regard to milk as were operated for a time by the Pig Marketing Board. We might have had a little explanation from the Minister in his cryptic utterance this morning as to what the position would be.

Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word about Amendment 6, to which the Minister made no reference at all. Broadly speaking, we should not have any objection to this Amendment, which deals with the conditions under which the Board are required to accept milk from a registered producer who cannot find a buyer, except that I feel that it ought to go much further than it does. Regard ought to be had to the difficulties which have arisen in the past in connection with the cancellation of contracts where producers have been found guilty by the courts of adulterating milk. I know of a case in which two farmers were found guilty by a court of wilful adulteration, and when the retail buyer, who, of course, must buy through the Board, applied to the Board to terminate the contracts with those farmers, difficulties were raised and the buyer was compelled to continue to accept supplies from those two farmers. While the Board may be justified in refusing to accept unsatisfactory milk, in practice it is likely, apparently, to do its utmost to prevent a purchaser cancelling a contract. It would be preferable that adulterated or unsatisfactory milk should be regarded as milk not fit for sale. If we want to increase the consumption of milk it is a sine quâ non that it should be fit at all times for human consumption, and a producer who has been found guilty of producing unsatisfactory milk should be prevented from selling milk until he can provide evidence that it is once again suitable.

Regarding Amendment No. 9 I would only say that if the powers-that-be had had a little more wisdom in 1933, we might have been saved the considerable loss to the pool which has accrued in the meantime, because producers of graded and tested milk were relieved of making the contribution which every other producer was forced to pay. I make no complaint about the inclusion of this class of producers among those who are to pay contributions, although I have grave doubts whether they a re being mulcted of a sufficient contribution in comparison with other producers who have to contribute to the pool.

In view of the other business before the House, which I do not wish to stop, I shall not comment on any of the other multitudinous Amendments, except Amendment No. 11, which presents almost the most controversial feature, and is of very great importance to the industry. It changes entirely the basis of contributions from producer-retailers. As the Minister said, those contributions fluctuate from month to month. They are based on the inter-regional compensation levy, the guaranteed quality premium levy and three-fourths of the difference between the prescribed price and the pool price of the producer's region. Details of the levies have been quoted by the Minister, but I hope that any Member who is interested in the problem of the producer retailer will find time to read the record of producer-retailer contributions in the monthly official journal of the Milk Board. The board propose that the producer-retailer levy shall be reduced to 1½d. per gallon, but while that is to be the figure if they pay cash, as I understood the Minister—I was not clear about that before—the real charge for ordinary credit purposes to be collected at stated periods is 1¾d. In the past the average of this fluctuating levy has been much nearer 3d. than 1½d. so that there is a substantial reduction in the contribution to be made by producer-retailers.

I feel that there are matters of policy in relation to milk behind this Amendment of which the House ought not to be unmindful. One important consideration is the health of the community. For some time past bodies like the Food Council, the Consumers' Committee and the Cutforth Commission have made references not always favourable to the possibility of having milk delivered without the process services of pasteurisation and bottling to be sold at differential prices, the general argument being that you could best reduce the price of milk if we asked the consumer to pay only for the type of service rendered. I feel that behind that lies the much more important consideration of the public health. The sister Department, the Ministry of Health, are actively considering what their attitude should be regarding pasteurised milk. I would remind hon. Members of the epidemic last year at Bournemouth, where over 50 deaths and over 500 cases of malignant fever were directly traced to the supply of milk from one producer selling milk loose and raw.

You mean fresh milk, not raw.

I am prepared to take the hon. and learned Member's correction. I do not wish to cavil about that. What I wish to impress upon the House is that 50 people died.

People who come here and argue as between pasteurisation and fresh milk must have regard to the actual health of the community. At this moment two important municipal corporations, Poole and Glasgow, have Bills before the House with a clause in them taking compulsory pasteurisation powers. The Ministry of Health have deferred the matter and are looking into it. The Government have also asked all local authorities who supply milk to school children that, as far as possible, they should supply pasteurised milk. By the reduction of his contribution, the producer-retailer will be placed in a very favourable position in relation to the vast majority of the trade, who have for years laid down expensive capital plants for the pasteurisation and bottling of milk, in the interests of public health. He will be much more favourably treated than are the rest of the producers of milk for wholesale sale. It is true to say that, to the extent to which you reduce this contribution, you will lessen the central fund upon which to draw for the settling of the pool price. When it is found that, with losses from manufacture, there is a less price to pay to the wholesale producer, the wholesale producer will say, "We cannot possibly manage, and we must have an increase." The next stage is the raising of the retail price to all the consumers. So, instead of assisting the consumption of fresh milk so vital to the health of the nation, you are actually getting the possibility of a reduction in the amount supplied for human consumption. That is a point which has not been fully considered and taken into account.

I want to remind the Minister that in the last fortnight we have had definite proof of how this matter works, and I would draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) to it, because this is a Scottish example. A few days ago, com- paratively speaking, we passed through the House a similar document to this, amending the Scottish scheme and reducing the levy upon the producer-retailer. What is the result? The Scottish Milk Marketing Board have just prescribed the retail price in Scotland to operate for the next milk year, and, for the first time in the history of the scheme, Scotland is to have a period of three months in the year which it has not had before, and in which the consumers will be required to pay 7d. per quart for milk. That is a direct illustration of the case which I am putting to the Minister that, if this reduction in the contribution of the retailer-producer is made, he will be put in much too favourable a position in regard to the general pool, and I am certain that it will lead to a general rise in the average price which is charged to the consumer.

I, personally, regret very much that, while one is able to agree with so many of the undoubted improvements in the scheme set forth in the Amendment, we cannot, under the procedure, move improving Amendments to the remainder. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, before we come to a decision upon this Amendment will be able to make such explanation as would enable me not to ask my hon. Friends to divide against it. If we are to be asked to approve en bloc Amendments which include points of this character, so detrimental to the future of the industry, I shall have to consider consulting my hon. Friends whether we are to divide against the Amendment as a whole.

I should not have attempted to take part in this Debate if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), whose statements cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. I corrected him during his speech in his use of the term "raw milk." It is not raw milk that is sold by the producer-retailer, but fresh milk. That is the only milk which is worth drinking. It is the milk on which we are all raised in the first year of our lives. What is pasteurised milk? It is half-boiled milk, milk raised to a certain temperature, kept at that temperature for a definite time and then chilled. There is nothing in that pro- cess; everybody could do it for himself, and if people accepted the advice of their medical officers it would be much better that they should do so. These facts are concealed by the modern practice of calling half-boiled milk pasteurised milk. People believe that it is milk from the pastures, and, therefore the name deceives them. The motive behind the proposal for compulsory pasteurising milk is to get all the milk into the hands of the monopolies, including the co-operative societies. They want all the milk to pass through their hands so that they can get a rake-off out of the food supplies of the people; that is what they are after.

The producer-retailer, who supplies fresh milk—which is the only milk worth drinking—is anathema to the monopolists, who do not want people in the country to get the taste of what real milk is. They know that people who once begin to drink fresh milk will not want the other stuff at all. It is true that in pasteurised milk all the bad microbes are half boiled, but so are the good microbes, and the benefit is gone. It is a cemetery of dead germs. If you feed calves upon pasteurised milk they die, and if you feed rats on it they fail to reproduce their species. I often wonder whether the birth control people are behind this pasteurising of milk. The producer-retailer takes his little farm near the town, and takes the milk round in his own barrow and sells it cheap to the people, without overhead costs. What a crime it is to give poor people milk at moderate prices. How it does offend the co-operative conscience. They feel bitter about it.

If the hon. and learned Member would investigate this matter with his usual forensic skill, he would know that, on balance, co-operative prices to their consumers are lower than those of anybody else in the country.

They may be, but they supply pasteurised milk, which is offensive to the people. The right hon. Gentleman seizes hold of the epidemic in Bournemouth, but would it not have happened just as easily if the milk had been half boiled and got infected the more easily? Surely it is better that people should boil their milk when they want it, rather than it should be boiled 48 hours before in a factory. It would not have time to get new germs if that were done. The whole purpose of pasteurising is to get milk cheap from distant farms and to get it into the hands of the monopolists. There are enormous vested interests bound up in this pasteurising idea, such as the people who make the pasteurising machinery, for which they get great sums, and there are, also the big combines. If this milk were sold as "half-boiled milk"—I am introducing a Bill for this purpose next Tuesday—it would not be nearly so popular, but people would know what they were getting. People can boil or half boil milk for themselves. After all, there is nothing in Pasteur's discovery. Everybody knew it. People boiled their water in Africa for over a century, and everybody in a foreign country boils the water, although it loses its taste so much by boiling that people in Rhodesia and South Africa make it into tea. That is why people in Africa drink such a lot of tea continuously; they do not like to drink boiled water. Now this proposal is a part of one of those monstrosities—a marketing scheme.

I know the history of these things in Canada. These schemes are generally got up by lawyers out of work. A lawyer out of work is as dangerous as a shark in a bathing pool. The lawyers in Canada went out and addressed the farmers, persuading them that they were to get an absolute monopoly and increased prices, and that everything in the garden was going to be lovely. Time and again since 1896 they have originated the same sort of marketing scheme in Canada and disaster has always followed. The first lot of people were prosecuted for criminal conspiracy and fined 200,000 dollars, and they call it there "Farming the Farmers." Now we have exactly the same sort of thing in this country, people going about and deluding the farmers, although they call it "organising the farmers" here. In Canada they had all the practices here, including huge advertisement bills, but the Supreme Court there annulled all their schemes and so it was in Australia quite recently. The Privy Council confirmed the Australian Court and set aside their scheme. It is an easy way for a great many people, generally the throw-outs of the commercial community, to make a living by starting these schemes among the producers who have no cunning, but are real workers. They are doing it everywhere in the British Empire where they can get away with it. But they are all impostures.

I cannot imagine how it could ever enter the mind of any Minister or of any intelligent people that to load any industry with a number of officials with what for men of their stamp are huge salaries which they could never earn in the open market even if they got a job at all could make such industry prosperous. The only Scottish people who voted for the scheme were the big firms who are going to get money out of it, and they voted for it in the confident belief that they would not have to pay for the expenses of the scheme, more than ½d. a gallon and that would be the limit of their liability. That was carefully circulated as if by share pushers all round the countryside. But the levies were as much as 10 times that amount and were held to be illegal by the highest Court in the land. So the other night, the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced a scheme imposing a levy of 1½d. a gallon in order to get money with which to compensate the people from whom the money had been illegally taken. They were to provide the funds for their own compensation, but he hid from the House that an action had just been raised for the whole of the money which was a most unconstitutional suppression of a matter which the House ought to have been informed of. Now I may warn the Minister that there is not one Clause in the Act of 1931 or in the Act of 1933 that gives power to the Milk Board to take the earnings of one set of producers and give them to another set of people. Neither Act gives any power of that kind; Parliament would never have passed it if it had. If it was intended by the framers it could hardly have been, said Lord MacMillan in the Ferrier case, "stated it in a less straightforward manner." "It is," Lord MacMillan said "a tax." To give such power the Act really ought to have begun somewhat in this way: "Notwithstanding anything in the Larceny Acts or the laws against theft, it shall nevertheless be competent for the Milk Board to take the money of A, and, after deducting what they require for themselves, to hand over the remainder to B." The same thing happens with all these marketing boards. As a result of the Bacon Board, for instance, bacon is inferior indeed and very difficult to get nowadays. None of these schemes can ever come to successful fruition except for the bandits who led the Governments up the garden and got the jobs for themselves, and I hope that some Minister of Agriculture—and I wish it would be the present one whose brilliant mind must soon detect the hollowness of his inheritance—will one day, and soon, have the courage to cut down the whole of these new vested interests which thrive by living on the producers, and abolish the lot.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough said that the producer-retailer would be placed in a more favourable position. Why should he not be? He works hard; he takes his place close to the town where he can sell his milk; he has not overheads and transport to pay for. He selects his place of business for that very reason, and is the friend and supplier of the wage earner. You might as well ask the country cobbler to pay a contribution to Freeman, Hardy and Willis or the wholesale co-operative boot producers as ask him to contribute to a milk pool. The suggestion is monstrous. Moreover, his rent is governed by the fact that he is close to the town; that is taken into consideration in fixing his rent.

What has been the result in Scotland? The value of the land in distant counties like Kirkcudbright and Wigtonshire has gone up by six to seven years' purchase, because the farmers there have been endowed with the earnings of the producer-retailers near the big towns. This levy of 1½d. per gallon represents, on the basis of a yield of 800 gallons, a tax of £5 a cow per annum on each one of these little producer-retailers. Why should he have to pay £5 a cow? It is far more than his rent, and there ought to have been a provision that any obligation as to rent should be cancelled if he has to pay the Milk Board more than his rent. As a result of all this, he is being eliminated, and there is very little milk in the country. People are all taking to tinned milk—something with sugar in it. Some have bought goats and if the practice becomes general we shall have the Milk Board pursuing the goats over the hills of Scotland.

The one really bright spot in what the Minister said was the statement that he is going to reduce the levy on the T.T. producer to ½d. gallon. There will be some benefit from that, because it will go some distance towards purifying the herds, and that is what I should like to see. Why do the doctors not clamour for that instead of bringing all this pressure to bear in favour of pasteurised milk? I have no faith in the medical profession. They are not a profession any longer; the National Health Insurance Act secured that. Now they have all joined the great brotherhood of Zaccheus—the tax-collectors. It would be far better to take steps to keep down the rabbit pest, which has a lot to do with the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

I notice that in one of the paragraphs of Amendment No 9 there is a provision for approval of the amount of the quality premium by the certificate of a "consulted person," who, I understand, is to be appointed by the Minister. I have no faith in the Ministers' "consulted persons". I recently attended the Selby bridge inquiry where the "consulted person" was the man who prepared the scheme and was going to be the engineer on the job. He was the man who was going to advise the Commissioner on his Report as to whether the scheme was feasible. I protested, and asked how the tribunal could possibly produce an independent report with the Devil's advocate sitting beside them, that no man should be judge or advise the judge in his own cause, that no man can serve two masters which is why bigamy is illegal. Yet I observe that the Transport Minister is quite unabashed. So much for Minister's "consulted persons". Whenever the Milk Board gets hard up, the levy will be raised.

As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough has said, the result in Scotland has been that the retail price of milk is now 2s. 4d. a gallon. It is no use talking about "nutrition" and "malnutrition" as long as that is the Milk Board's price, and as long as a man who sells his milk cheaper because he can produce it cheaper is treated as a felon. That is a shocking state of affairs. If he is satisfied with the price he receives, and if his customers are satisfied, it is very wrong that he should be treated as a criminal, that his licence should be taken from him, and that he should even, perhaps, be fined £100. When I was a boy milk was one penny a pint or twopence a quart, and it was good, fresh milk, not the boiled-out stuff which the Milk Board are endeavouring to inflict upon us, with the assistance of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health tolerates dyed kippers and all sorts of stuff of that kind. I do not believe in the Minister of Health; he is not doing the country any good if he tolerates a scheme like this, which is going to make the people's milk supplies immensely dearer by placing permanently on the backs of the suppliers a huge body of officials. That is a thing which makes one almost despair of any improvement in the general condition and nutrition of the people.

I understand that this is my hon. and learned Friend's birthday. We wish him "Many happy returns" and hope that on many other occasions he will deliver speeches with as much entertainment in them as the one with which he has just delighted the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "And sense."] There is always a good deal of sense in what my hon. and learned Friend says. I hope he will not expect me to traverse the very wide ground that he has covered ranging from bridge inquiries to dyed kippers. On the general point we well understand his view about the Board. He objects to control by the producers, but there are many people anxious to control the producers. For example one can imagine circumstances in which organisations of the distributive trade might be very anxious to control producers in the interest, not of the producers, but of the distributive organisation. If one regards the situation that existed before the Milk Board came into existence, there was a danger of that sort of control being established in certain sections of the distributive industry, and the producers had to be given a chance to organise for their own protection and control. Quite recently a poll was taken as to whether the producers desired the continuance of the scheme, and 81 per cent. of the producers voting, representing 86½ per cent. of the cows—so that there was not a great disparity between the number of cows and the number of producers—voted in favour of the continuance of the scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he knows what is good for the producer better than the producer himself, but his view of the matter is not entirely shared.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) dealt in particular with certain Amendments which he thought deserved consideration. The first was Amendment No. 2. The origin of this Amendment and of the section of the Scheme which it amends is to be found in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, Section 5, paragraph (f), which says in terms that the scheme may provide for

"regulating the manner in which the regulated product, or any description or quantity thereof, is to be graded by or on behalf of registered producers, or the manner in which the regulated product or any description or quantity thereof is to be marked, packed, stored, adapted for sale, insured, advertised, or transported by or on behalf of registered producers."

The section of the Scheme to which the Amendment refers merely carries into effect the provisions of this part of that Act, and the Amendments are merely developments of that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully the concluding work of the Section:

"By or on behalf of registered producers."

That is to say, the provision can affect milk only as long as it is the property of the producers. As soon as it passes from the producer into the hands of the buyer or the distributor, it ceases to be a matter over which they can exercise effective control. There is no objection at all to the Board acting for the producer in the matter to see that conditions of transport, grading, packing, and so on, are regulated with regard to the interest of the producers. The history of the matter before the inquiry was that there was objection taken to it and then, as a compromise, the words were agreed that appear in paragraph 60 (A) in the scheme on page 4 of the printed Amendments, which read:—

"The Board shall not, without previously consulting such persons as they think best qualified to express the views of purchasers of milk otherwise than by retail, make any prescription or determination …"

I am instructed that, when this offer of prior consultation between interests representing the purchasers was incorporated, as it is now in the Amendment, the objection was withdrawn. Take a matter like insurance, surely a matter that the Board may well exercise surveillance over in the interest of the producers: if they can make a collective bargain, or arrange a certain rate, it is a very reasonable thing.

I have no record that I withdrew the objection. I agree that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman amended, lessens the evil of it, but it does not remove the central objection.

I am just acting on what I am told, but I think it is a reasonable Amendment and, with the addition of paragraph 60 (A), it goes a long way to meet the apprehensions that may be felt, while leaving the Board with the power provided in the Agricultural Marketing Act. The other Amendment dealt with adulteration. All these cases of adulteration are matters of fact. I should hesitate to pronounce any general formula on such a question. The crime of adulteration carries its own penalty, and I do not think the cases of it are sufficiently numerous to warrant any real objection to Amendment No. 6.

I am trying to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not let it go like that. He is not really dealing with the point. The point is that there is a contract with the Milk Board for the supply of certain producers' milk, and difficulties are placed in the way of the buyer breaking the contract although the producer has been found guilty of adulteration.

That is more a matter of the actual day-to-day administration of the Scheme than of the Scheme itself.

If a man supplies adulterated milk, has he not himself broken his contract?

As I said, each case of adulteration must depend upon the facts. There is often a great deal of doubt whether milk has been adulterated or not. Obviously, if a man breaks his contract he has broken it, but there are so many border-line cases in all these matters that I should prefer to leave the penalty for adulteration in the competent hands of the Bench. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in brief is that this question is one of the day-to-day problems of administration. The Amendment No. 6, which is linked up with No. 15, is merely an attempt to define the obligation of the Board to accept milk for which the producer cannot find a purchaser. It is a closer definition of the conditions. The question is an important one of administration. If the right hon. Gentleman brings cases that come to his notice I will consult the Board and see if anything can be done, but the Amendment to the scheme is reasonable.

As regards the producer-retailer, both points of view have been forcibly and eloquently put; but the matter is one for the producers to express their views upon, as they have done in asking for this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman objected on the grounds of public health to this reduction in the contribution of producer-retailers. Why should they sell milk which had not been subjected to processing? There was a sweeping generalisation implied in the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the milk supplied by producer-retailers is of inferior quality. On this point, I think that there are many producer-retailers in the country who do their best, and with success, to supply decent milk, and if producers as a whole are willing to carry out their obligations in the manner suggested, we can rest assured that it will be in the interests of justice. I would point out also to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not departing in the least from our endeavour to get the quality of the milk supplied by producer-retailers up to a higher standard. Therefore, there is ample inducement to go forward along the line of progress in supplying clean and wholesome milk. These are the suggestions of the producers themselves for a more efficient working of the Scheme, and I hope that the House will now accept the Motion.

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, for the guidance of the House, you will say something about the procedure to be adopted in relation to these Amendments. It is the first time in my long experience of this House that such a large batch of Amendments has come from another place, many of which are of a controversial character. I think that hon. Mem- bers, many of whom are unfamiliar with the procedure on Lords Amendments, would welcome guidance as to the course to be adopted in relation to them.

I hardly know what the hon. Member means. The procedure with regard to this Bill is exactly the same as the procedure upon any other Bill as regards Amendments that come from another place. The hon. Member, the promoter of the Bill, will move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," and if the House agrees, they will be considered. Each Amendment will be taken separately, and the promoter of the Bill will move either that the Lords Amendment be accepted or that it be rejected.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

I would only add, for the reassurance of my hon. Friend, that I have some acquaintance with the procedure on these Amendments, and I am sure that if there are difficulties, he will find that they can be dealt with from time to time. There are only two Amendments which are really controversial.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House may remember that this Clause proposed, when it left this House, that a petition of divorce should not be presented within five years of the date of marriage, and this Amendment proposes to reduce the period to three years. Upon this Clause I have rather a particular personal responsibility, and I think I should be lacking in my duty to the House, and in respect for my opponents, if I did not consider these Amendments with considerable care and anxiety, as I have done. It might be profitable and right if I went back briefly over the history of this Clause, which has been so much discussed. First, it is not a Clause which has been extracted from the promoters in Committee, and, therefore, all talk of a bargain is erroneous. The Clause was in the original Bill, which I introduced in my first Session. The promoters, some of them reluctantly, have always been wedded to the principle of the Clause; but the possibility of modifying the details, especially with regard to time, has never been excluded. Hon. Members will remember that all through the somewhat exciting passage of this Bill, not its essence but its proportions and its shape have been constantly changing, and so the relation of this Clause to the rest of the Bill has been constantly changing, and, indeed, I would remind the House, the actual terms of the Clause have changed since the Second Reading. In the form in which this Bill was first presented to the House and carried on Second Reading the Clause stated that no petition "shall be granted" within five years. That is to say, the petition might have been presented in the third or any other year. I remember the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) on the Second Reading said that on the retention of that Clause the fate of the Bill would depend. I want hon. Members to observe the word "granted".

I do not think that I ever said that the fate of the Bill depended upon this. I said that the attitude of some hon. Members towards the Bill might be changed.

I do not think that it is worth arguing about. I am not trying to attack the hon. Member, but it says here:

"The whole fate of the Bill does depend on Clause 1."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1936; col. 2130, Vol. 317.]

He may have been misreported. I am not trying to quarrel with him. I merely say that that was a very different Clause from the Clause which now stands in the Bill. The Bill went up to Standing Committee, and on the very first day we made a very drastic alteration, on our own motion, for various reasons, changing the word "granted" to "presented". At once the House will see that there was, in the usual course of court proceedings, added a delay of another year. Now, at that time there was still a Clause in the Bill abolishing the decree nisi. We had a debate on the first day upstairs, when we discussed, and I discussed, the possibility of reducing the time, and in relation to that time we mentioned the fact that there was a further Clause abolishing the decree nisi. The question was left open, and the Clause was carried without a division. Subsequently, the Clause abolishing the decree nisi was cut out of the Bill, and that added another six months to the period, so that when the Bill left the Committee and came back to the Floor of the House, on the Report stage, it was quite a different thing; the whole shape of the Bill on this matter was different. On the Report stage an Amendment was put down by, I think, the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) to leave out the Clause altogether, but it was not called. If at that stage an Amendment of this character had been put down and called, I am not at all sure that it would not have been accepted by the promoters, and I am almost certain that it would have been insisted upon by the House. However, that was not done, and in my final speech—I remember the words I used, when I was discussing the possible fate of the Bill in another place—I said that it might be the period of five years was too long, and that some hon. Members had suggested other modifications. Then I said that I had no influence with the Lords—I found later that I had been too modest—and I also said that I for my part

"could not be a party to any abandonment of the principle of Clause 1, or to any substantial modification of its provisions without thinking myself guilty of a breach of faith to many who have supported the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1937; col. 643, Vol. 324.]

There were such cheers that the last words were not heard and I emphasise them now.

Then the Bill went to the Lords, where I heard every word of the debates and saw a tremendous barrage laid upon this unfortunate Clause by experts, by laymen, by bishops, even by archbishops; and that barrage did very much impress me. If anyone accuses me of changing my mind, my reply is that the whole object and purpose of our debates in Parliament is to make people change their minds. I have never changed my mind about the principle, but I was impressed by the criticisms of the workability of the Clause, not only the technical workability of it—as to which I think there was some exaggeration—but the political workability. I am quite sure that if the Clause were passed as it stands now there would be such an outcry against the anomalies and hardships that it would cause, that within a year the Government itself would have to take it off the Statute Book. Well, the Lords are rather more learned than we are, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman who is on the front bench opposite (Mr. Pritt). They devised a scheme, one half of which is included in the Amendment now before the House and the other half in their next Amendment to the Clause. We now have to decide whether we shall accept the Amendment, and I say emphatically that I think the House ought to accept it.

There are two parties to the criticism of this Motion. One is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford, those who have opposed us in spite of this Clause, and there are others such as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and one or two more—I do not know how numerous they are—who voted for the Second Reading on the strength of this Clause. I would say to them now that in effect I think they are getting substantially what they expected. I ask them again to consider this point: This Clause, as amended, is in point of time divided by only about six months from the original Clause as it was at the Second Reading of the Bill, for which some of my hon. Friends voted. In the Clause as it was introduced a man might have got his decree absolute sharp at the end of the fifth year. With the Clause as it is now, the decree nisi still existing, he probably will not get the decree absolute for four or four-and-a-half years. So we are really quarrelling, in view of the Second Reading, about a difference of only six months or so. I am sorry that the Archbishop of Canterbury said that this was a trifling thing not worth having. I say with great respect that I am not quite able to follow the workings of that great mind. Three years is three years and four years is four years.

The hon. Member must be careful that he does not quote speeches made in another place too literally, in order to influence the debate in this House.

I beg your pardon. I do think it is idle for anyone to say that three years is a trifling thing and a miserable compromise. We shall be placing on the Statute Book for the first time a declaration that marriage ought not to be a temporary alliance. I quite agree that it is not going, numerically, to effect delay in many divorces. It might be 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. or less of the total rate on the present figures. But although it may not numerically delay many divorces, this Clause will be in the mind of every person who contracts a marriage, both before and after the wedding, and I say that it is not a mere shuffling kind of compromise by which we hope to shovel the Bill through. I think it will be a positively valuable addition to the Statute Book.

I would like to make an appeal to my hon. Friends, my enemies, and especially those of the Roman Catholic faith, to whom I have already paid my tribute for the fairness with which they have fought their fight. There has been a great deal of talk, especially in another place, about bargains and concessions. There have been no bargains. I shall resent, and have resented, any language about dishonoured cheques and that sort of thing, such as we have heard already. But there have been concessions, and, without wishing to cause offence, I would say that all the concessions so far have been made by one side. They have been made by the majority to a minority. I am not complaining about that a bit; I am not regretting it. It has been part of our deliberate policy to try to conduct this Bill without souring the field of religious tolerance and without putting ourselves in the position of a majority dragooning a minority. In return we have received a harmonious atmosphere, for which we are grateful. But now I wonder whether my hon. Friends might not perhaps make a little more positive contribution. It will do them great credit, it will do their faith great credit, and perhaps do this House some credit if now, at the end of this long battle, when we have reduced our debatable differences to this very narrow point, they are able to say, not that they have surrendered their opinions—that, I know, they will never do—but that they do feel they may hold out a sympathetic hand in a truce of understanding; by which I mean that I hope they will not think it necessary to divide against this Motion. For my part, if they cannot accede to that appeal, I say without a shadow of doubt and with a clear conscience, that this Lords Amendment ought to be accepted.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) will have had the sympathy of the House in the exposition that he has given us of his changed view since the Bill left this House for another place. We all admire his sincerity and all appreciate the spirit in which he has conducted this Measure through the House and in Committee. But even with that great regard for his high public character I do not think I can accept the explanation he has given. When this Bill first went into Committee the hon. Gentleman, in response to an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), used words which showed the strong conviction that prevailed at the time in the minds of those responsible for the Bill, in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. An hon. Member said in Committee, in criticising an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, on this very point, the introduction of the limiting period for divorce—

"This would destroy the underlying intention of the Clause, which is to keep the idea of divorce from the minds of the parties to the marriage during the earlier and more critical years."

The supporters of the Bill at that early stage said that the underlying intention was that there should be this limiting period of five years. Subsequently in the same Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who made a very valuable contribution to the Debate, made it clear, in an interesting speech, that he was convinced that was the feeling of the Committee, and later when my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University had withdrawn his Amendment, he said it was clear that the majority of the Committee were in favour of the retention of the five years limiting period in Clause 1.

I am prepared to respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Oxford University at the close of his speech, but I am bound to say that there is still in this country a very large volume of feeling against the whole object of this Measure. If there is any contract in this country which is of a supreme character, it is the contract of marriage. This five years question is of profound significance, because we have always regarded ourselves in this country and in this House as the guardians of the righteousness and sanctity of all contracts, and of all contracts the supreme contract is the contract of marriage. To those of us who have opposed the Bill from the beginning, the period of five years was the corner-stone of the structure of the Bill on which we could have any sympathy for it.

It is not for us in this House to criticise what happens in another place, but one could have wished that the skill and wisdom which is always exercised in our Legislature had been differently exercised in relation to this Clause. I simply stand to make my protest. I think this is bad legislation. There are hard cases, but we cannot found our social system on hard cases and borderline cases. Although the Bill may relieve many embarrassing cases, I regard it as a serious blow at the moral fibre of our social system. I make my protest against the Bill. I know that my hon. Friends in this House are in favour of this Clause, and I believe that my hon. Friend will get the Bill, but we make our protest and declare our original conviction that a Measure of this kind is the wrong way to deal with marriage, and that it strikes a blow at the moral fibre of our social structure.

I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes, but I rise as one who does not feel, if I may use the phrase, the same almost fanatical opposition to the whole Measure as my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon). When the Bill was last before this House, I felt compelled to walk into the Lobby in opposition to it. The reason which forced me into that Lobby was because at that time the Bill contained within the first Clause the stipulation as regards the five years' period, which we are now discussing. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division said he felt the necessity of maintaining the five years' limit, and that that five years' period was in some sense the corner-stone of the structure. I considered it before, and I should consider it now if it were in the Clause, the corner-stone of the most brutally weighted edifice, and it was for that reason that I voted against it.

There is one point on which I should like an explanation. This is essentially a private Member's Bill. We have had experience if not of some danger, yet of some actual difficulty, as regards the time that may be allotted by the Government for the discussion of the Bill. On the Report stage this House did not, for technical reasons, have an opportunity of discussing this particular provision of five years or three years, To my mind that had tragic results and, although I may not criticise any debates that may have taken place in another place, yet those who have studied those debates closely may possibly agree that they would have taken a different form if this House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this question. A difficulty arises now. I am not satisfied that the provision in the Amendment to reduce five years to three years will eliminate a sufficient number of cases where cruelty would have been caused by the original provision.

I am not at all sure that within a few months of this Bill becoming law we may not hear many complaints of sad cases, with all sorts of complications, which hon. Members of this House, however learned, or noble Lords in another place, however learned, cannot have foreseen. The ramifications of this form of legislation are impossible to foretell a s regards their effect, whether cruel or uncruel, and I should like to know—perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to give us some guidance—how safe we may feel, as far as anybody cart say at this stage, that if this House takes the decision on this Amendment which the promoters wish them to take, that we shall be given time to discuss an amending Bill if cruelty can be proved as a result of this Amendment. I should feel extremely unhappy if I were to think that this provision, as the result of a private Member's Bill and of this House supporting a private Mem- ber's Bill, were to remain in the Act for one month longer than is absolutely necessary if it were proved that real cruelty was being imposed upon those who might have escaped that cruelty if such a provision had not been inserted. Otherwise, I feel that I must support the Amendment. I think the promoters of the Bill have been wise in accepting it, although I have some difficulty in accepting the reasons for accepting it which were given by the hon. Member for Oxford University.

I feel bound to oppose the Amendment, but on rather different grounds than have been advanced by other hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) that there was never any bargain in regard to Clause 1. I was one of those who supported the Third Reading of the Bill mainly because Clause 1 stood in the form in which it stood on Third Reading. The hon. Member said that, after all, there was only six months difference in the time in his original Bill and the Bill as amended in the House of Lords, but he did not say that there was a two years difference between the Bill as it passed its Third Reading in this House and as it now appears. After all, the Committee upstairs made alterations, but, in point of fact, this House voted for a Measure in which the period was not actually five years but, taking other things into consideration, considerably longer and, therefore, we have a difference of two years, not a difference of six months. I would point out that so far as the Bill is concerned if it is to be a success—and I think all hon. Members hope that as a result of the reform of the divorce laws we may be able to give greater help and comfort and assistance to many people who are hardly hit—it is important that the view should not be adopted that this is a Bill to give easier facilities for divorce. I have supported it because it aims at more equitable divorce, not that it makes divorce easier.

What effect is this three-year period going to have on many people who will pass into marriage when the Bill comes into law? It seems to me that they will not be guided very much by the fact that there is this three-year period in considering any question of a decree nisi. What they will say is this: "We can get married, and in three years time we can get out of marriage if we want to." That will be the obvious feeling of the ordinary man and woman. Very few marriages break down in the course of the first year, but after 18 months or two years there come those differences and difficulties which may lead people to think of getting out of the marriage. A breakdown may occur at the end of two years, and experts on marriage say that it is not very likely that people will fall in love again in the next two years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are the experts?"] I am unable to say who are the experts, but that is what I am told through inquiries I have made.

Were the hon. Member's inquiries directed to Members of this House?

It would hardly be proper for me to give the name of my informant. We have the fact that a marriage has lasted 18 months and if there is this five-year period they will be forced to try to make it work over a moderately long period for reconsideration or reconciliation. At the end of 18 months there is still 3½ years left before they can consider divorce, and that, I think, would have an effect in a few cases where temporary difficulties have arisen. Although I shall be in a minority, and although I am opposing the Amendment on rather different lines from other hon. Members, I feel bound to continue my opposition. The Bill as originally drafted was a good Bill and would do good, but it is futile when by cutting down the time limit you encourage persons to make use of these new facilities for easier divorce.

I never concealed my dislike for this Bill when it was discussed in the House or in the Committee upstairs. I want to utter a word of protest against this new proposal. I have listened to what has been so forcibly said by hon. Members, including the effective speech of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), and while I appreciate and respect the sentiments which prompted him to make his observations, I want to say that my objection to the Amendment is based on entirely different grounds. We cannot, on this Amendment, discuss whether or not there should be a waiting period at all. We have never discussed in this House any alteration of the original five-year period, and I am opposed to a waiting period altogether. I am going to oppose the Amendment in the hope that if the House accepts our view I shall be able to introduce an Amendment to make the waiting period of far less duration. That is the course I propose to follow. Many hon. Members who are opposed to increasing the grounds for divorce were willing to accept the Measure because of what they thought was a compromise in the five-year period. With that five-year bar reduced, I feel that many hon. Members can no longer give to the Measure the general support they indicated they could give when the five-year period was in the Bill. I say that a Bill which makes a very great inroad upon the family life of this country should not be accepted with an Amendment like this. It makes it an entirely different Bill from that which was introduced in the House of Commons.

The House, I know, wants to get on, and I will not detain hon. Members for more than a few moments. It appears to me that the Bill comes from another place in its true colours at last. When it left this House on the Third Reading I said that I should be glad to see the last of the Marriage Bill. Now it comes to us as the Matrimonial Causes Bill, and that is a much more honest description of it. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert), I thought, was not very comfortable in the speech of apology he had to make to the House in moving the acceptance of this Amendment. He has given me a copy of the speech he made on the Third Reading dealing with this Clause, and I want to read to the House two extracts. He said:

"It is not a sham. It is not a 'sop.' I believe the Clause will have good effects. It will save marriages; it will discourage rash marriages and rash divorces."

A little further on he said—and this is the important point—

"For some strange reason I am not a Peer, and I have very little influence in another place, but I myself could not be a party to any abandonment of the principle of Clause 1, or to any substantial modification of its provisions without thinking myself guilty of a breach of faith to many who have supported the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1937, Col. 642, Vol. 324.]

The suggestion of a breach of faith is immaterial, but the point is that there have been substantial modifications. I hate the reduction of this period to three years. In fact, it is such a substantial modification that it applies not to 14 per cent. of marriages, but only to four per cent. However, I will comply with the appeal made at the end of my hon. Friend's speech. I will deny myself even the consolation of solvitur ambulando. I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers that Mr. Gladstone, at that Box, once said that he believed it was a matter of solvitur ambulando. Lord Salisbury asked him what he meant by that; did he mean walking through the Division Lobby? Mr. Gladstone's reply was: "No Sir, I mean marching towards the temple of truth, guided by the light of reason." I cannot see the temple of truth at the end of the Division Lobby into which I should walk. I will allow my hon. Friend the comfort of going his own way in peace.

I have no contribution to make on the question of principle raised in the Amendment, but I would like to reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). The hon. Member asked whether the House would be given time to discuss an amending Bill if hardship occurred as a result of this Amendment. The only answer I can give is that the position in this case is no different from that in the case of any other Bill. If hardship results from the operation of the Bill, and the matter becomes sufficiently aggravated to be a political question, the Government would have to take notice of it, because its attention would be called to it by hon. Members in all parts of the House. If such a situation arose, it would be open to my hon. Friend and to hon. Members of all parties to call the Government's attention to the hardship with a view to their considering the question as to whether an amending Bill should be brought forward.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment".

It was considered in the Lords that in addition to the reduction of the period from five to three years, there might be many cases in which it would be both intolerable and useless to insist upon there being no possible dispensation. This Amendment proposes that, subject to rules of court, a judge of the High Court may allow a petition to be presented before three years have passed if he is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. It was felt that in some cases an absolute bar to divorce might cause unnecessary hardship if it were unaccompanied by any power of dispensation. Cases of this nature—venereal disease, compelling to prostitution, sodomy, and so on—come to one's mind immediately, and in such cases it would be intolerable to prevent the injured party from going to the court. I understand that the procedure would be that the application would be made, probably ex parte on affidavit evidence, either to a judge in Chambers in London or to a judge at the Assizes, and therefore no great expense would be likely to fall on poor people, who I hope will be able to go to the Assizes.

Then I would like to draw attention to a new and very remarkable provision which I hope will commend itself to my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill. It is provided that in determining any application for special leave, the judge shall have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and to the question whether there is reasonable probability of reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of the said three years. That is a most valuable new principle to place on the Statute Book, and I believe it is the first occasion on which reconciliation is mentioned in a divorce Bill.

I would like to take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and others, who generously responded to my appeal on the last Amendment. I would like also to say one word in regard to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford on the passage which he quoted from my speech on the Third Reading, which I think is perfectly consistent with the line I have taken on these Amendments. It would have been very easy for me to stand aside and allow hon. Members to agree with these Amendments, to maintain a great reputation for personal integrity with the hon. Member for Stretford, and to let the House do my work for me. But that is not my conception of the functions of a leader. As for "substantial modifications," I would remind my hon. Friend that when it was mooted in another place that there should be a reduction of the period to two years and even to one year, rightly or wrongly, I resisted. My hon. Friend may think that it is hair-splitting to distinguish in this way between three and two, but that is the view I took.

I wish to acknowledge the very valuable principle which is introduced in this Amendment, but at the same time, the Amendment does extend the facilities for divorce, and on that ground I am bound to say that I am sorry that it will become part of the legislation. I could not allow the Motion to agree with this Amendment to go through without saying that on the same grounds as those which I have already explained I am against extending the facilities for divorce, and against leaving the home more open to a sort of speculative future as to the relations between man and wife. I am opposed to any movement in that direction. At the same time, I acknowledge that having already in this Bill extended the facilities for divorce, it is a decided advantage that this new principle should be introduced for safeguarding the children and providing the machinery for conciliation, and I regard it as a valuable contribution.

I should like some reassurance as to how these words "exceptional hardship" and "exceptional depravity" will be construed and how this will work in the courts. This appears to many of us to open up a very dangerous field. I should be most grateful, personally, for a statement and I believe the House would like to be reassured before we agree to this Amendment, as to whether the definition of the grounds on which this discretion may be used is sufficient to enable that discretion to be exercised by those responsible for exercising it, otherwise than on the ground of their own personal opinions alone.

I should like some information as to the kind of machinery which is contemplated. When, for instance, is the discretion to be applied for and obtained? This Clause is an embargo on the taking of a petition within a certain time, and I wonder whether we could be given any information as to the rules which are contemplated for the hearing of applications for this discretion. I appreciate the fact that the rules have not yet been settled, but we ought to have some indication of what the machinery is going to be, of where an application is to be made, of whether it is to be made publicly or otherwise, and of what is the general idea of the procedure to enable a petitioner to come inside this provision.

In reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), I would remind him that at present this is a private Member's Bill, though it looks as though it will probably become an Act later. When it becomes an Act, if it does so, it will then be for those responsible for the administration of the law to make rules to see that effect is given to it. The House will have sufficient confidence in my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to feel assured that he will make rules under the new Act which will enable that Act to be operated. The Rules Committee of the Supreme Court is responsible for the making of rules, and it would be quite premature to attempt to say at the present time what form those rules will take. I apprehend that the rules will state when the application has to be made, where it has to be made and in what terms, but those things must be left to the Rules Committee under the guidance of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

As regards the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) the matter is by these words left to the discretion of the judge and the judge must be trusted to be able to decide for himself whether or not a particular case is one of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity. It would be impossible for the House to lay down any definite guidance beyond these general words as to how a judge of the High Court is to exercise his discretion.

Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the expression "exceptional hardship" is wide enough?

I think it gives the widest possible scope to the judge of the High Court. No judge would find any difficulty in dealing with a case within the ambit of these words.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman point to any example of legislation in which similar expressions to these are used in regard to the discretion of the judge? These words are very wide in their scope.

As a matter of fact, the court at the present time can shorten the period between a decree nisi and a decree absolute, which normally is six months and in such cases the court is entitled to consider the question of exceptional hardship. That is a definite instance of the kind of discretion which has had to be operated in the past, and there has been no difficulty in operating it.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a rather more substantial Amendment than those which have just been agreed to, but I think it is unobjectionable. Under the existing law a petition for judicial separation may be presented on the ground of adultery, or cruelty, or desertion without cause, for two years, or failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, or on any ground on which a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro might have been granted before the Act of 1857. But the Bill as it stands does away with some of these grounds. It was thought by noble Lords that there was no reason to alter the law in this respect, and accordingly this Amendment was inserted. The only difference between the Bill and the existing law will now be that, for purposes of judicial separation, desertion must exist for three years. I ought to apologise to the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) who put down at an earlier stage a similar Amendment which we resisted.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This really amounts to little more than a re-draft of the provision originally contained in the second part of Clause 5 of the Bill as it left the House of Commons. It was thought preferable to have a new Clause, as the subject matter of the second part of the original Clause really had little to do with the first part. The only alteration of substance is that in cases where an order for separation made either in the High Court or a magistrate's court is to be used as the basis of a petition for divorce, the court cannot now pronounce a decree of divorce without receiving evidence from the petitioner. That is a new safeguard inserted in order to ensure that the petitioner shall be before the court.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) will have a few words to say about this Amendment.

The main purpose of the Amendment is to omit so much of paragraph (b) as makes it a ground for nullity that the respondent has been, within 12 months of the marriage, placed in an institution under guardianship under a certain Section of the Mental Deficiency Act. As the Clause left this House, it was defective in that it made an event subsequent to the marriage a ground of nullity, whereas a marriage can only be annulled in the light of circumstances, not known to the parties, which were in existence at the time of the marriage. The effect of the Amendment is to remedy that and to make it clear on the face of the Clause that mental deficiency must exist at the time of the marriage and be unknown to the petitioner. I hope the House will accept that explanation as being in all the circumstances adequate.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

We originally wanted to insert a definition of the term "venereal disease" in the Bill, but it was found difficult and on the whole unnecessary to do so. The words "in a communicable form" are sufficient to serve as a definition and to indicate the purpose of the Clause.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think this Amendment explains itself. It is thought to be desirable in these cases that the petitioner should only be denied relief if he or she has willingly had intercourse.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is illogical but humane. It has the object of seeing that children born of marriages declared null under paragraphs (b) and (c) shall nevertheless be legitimate.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendments on Clause 7 are almost entirely verbal. The first one provides that the form of the order made by the court shall be more in accordance with correct judicial procedure. The Bill says rather vaguely that the marriage shall be dissolved, and the Amendment provides that it shall be dissolved by order of the court.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The original words were:

"has not been known by the petitioner to be living."

It was thought that there might be cases where the petitioner did not know but might have had reason to believe from hearsay or otherwise, and, therefore, the words ought to be altered in this sense.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I hope that the House will agree with this and with the following Amendment. The point is that the Clause is extended to decrees nisi granted before the passing of the Act as well as after. It is really an extension of the principle, and a useful one, and I think the House will certainly agree to it.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The next seven Amendments are all Amendments to Clause 9, and they are valuable Amendments for which the promoters in both Houses may take some credit, but they are rather complicated. Perhaps I may briefly indicate what the purpose of them is, though I had hoped that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) would be able to assist me here. The Subsection to which this Amendment refers does not for the moment exist. It has been invented by their Lordships and may be found on page 5 of the Amendment Paper. The object of it is to bring the children under this Clause and to give the court power to order a husband, or the wife in the case of an insane husband, to secure money for the benefit of the maintenance and education of the children, whereas at the moment the court only has power to order such payments on the making of a decree. The only other important point is to be found in the Amendment to line 9, on page 7 of the Bill, to insert a new Sub-section (2). This really redrafts Sub-section (2) in a more concise form and contains the useful provision, in cases where an insane person has been divorced and money is ordered to be paid for maintenance, that the court may order such money to be paid to a person having charge of the insane person, for example, a municipal institution, the object being that the money shall not be wasted.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment and will have the effect of enabling the persons getting an order under this Sub-section to qualify for the proceedings mentioned in Clause 5.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Church of Wales is anxious that it should be made clear that the clergymen of that church are covered by this Clause.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a verbal Amendment designed to express more properly the relations between a Minister and his church or chapel.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment has not the sinister intention that some hon. Members fear. The reason is purely technical. Most Marriage Acts and Bills have dealt with the celebration of marriage, and, in spite of what some of my critics have said, this Bill does still contain one or two mild references to the dissolution of marriage. It is with something of a sentimental pang that I surrender the old Title which has for so long been the partner of our days. It did symbolise in intention which was sincerely felt, and will, I hope, be carried out in practice.

As this is the last opportunity I shall have, I should like to thank His Majesty's Government for giving us their time, my hon. Friends for giving their work, their co-operation and their kindness, and last, but not least, my hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) for giving us this opportunity.

Perhaps the House will allow a private Member to offer his hearty congratulations to a brother private Member on a most remarkable success. There are many people to whom this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be the most important Act, for better or for worse, of the whole Session; but, apart from that, everybody will agree that it is one of major importance full of difficulties and rich in controversy. The Government have throughout kept studiously aloof, and both Church and State have deliberately avoided taking an active part in the passage of the Bill. I do not mention that by way of criticism; I mention it merely to note the fact that a private Member has succeeded in piloting an extremely difficult Bill without their assistance. It just shows what is still possible in this House to a private Member who is resolute, persuasive and who consciously represents an enormous volume of instructed opinion—

I would point out that this is completely irrelevant. We cannot permit the Lords Amendments to be used as an occasion for panegyrics on the Bill.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 8, line 23, agreed to.