I am afraid that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment. I quite understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross): they are not merely Protestant or Presbyterian feelings. But although marriage settlements are not made very often, when they are made it is not with the express intention of their ending in divorce. The purpose of this kind of marriage settlement is to make provision for what should happen when the marriage terminates, and that means when it terminates at death. The hon. Member concluded that settlements were made because people thought that their marriages might possibly end in divorce, but the real purpose of such settlements is to decide upon some arrangement as to what should happen to property on the termination of a marriage. Unfortunately, even the happiest of marriages are terminated by death.

That is why this paragraph is necessary. Its purpose is to empower the court, upon granting a divorce, to order a variation in the terms of the marriage settlement. By the changes in the law which we are making in this part of the Bill we are giving courts a discretion to make an award to the pursuer, from the defender's estate, in terms which it thinks fit, laving regard to all the circumstances of the case. The court will be responsible for making a financial settlement which is satisfactory to both parties.

The provisions in the marriage settlement dealing with what is to happen on the termination of the marriage must affect the issue, and a court might find itself unable to make satisfactory provisions because the property of the parties was tied up in the terms of the settlement. That is why, if the court is to do what it is asked to do here, it must have power to vary a settlement, and that is why I suggest we should retain this provision.