[BILL 59.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1881)

§ MR. WARTON
, in rising to oppose the Bill, observed that it was a Bill the object of which was to make the position of wives still better in regard to their husbands by compelling the latter, when a separation had taken place, to contribute to the support of the children who might be under the wife's control. He could not understand the motive of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) in bringing forward such a Bill. He could only suppose him the hero of a little knot of strong-minded women who were moving heaven and earth to change the relations of married people. The Bill appeared to him to be a meddling and muddling interference with all the domestic concerns of life; and everyone who knew what were the responsibilities of a married man must oppose it.

§ MR. LITTON
said, he was so much impressed with the advantages of the Bill, that if it succeeded in passing the second reading it was his intention to move in Committee that the benefit of its provisions should be extended to Ireland. There was no provision by which a husband who chose to neglect his wife and children could be forced to contribute to their support, unless the wife broke up her home, and, with herself and children, became chargeable upon the Poor Rates. In such case, an order was made on the husband to pay at the instance of the Guardians; but, as 1215 the law stood, the wife could not herself obtain relief. This was a state of things he thought required a remedy.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought that, in considering the Bill, the House ought to take into account the Bill already in progress, which would make a wife's property absolutely independent of her husband. They were now asked to go further, and give the wife power to apply to Court as against her husband to maintain her children in any circumstances. He thought the House ought not to go further in the direction of disturbing domestic relations, and no necessity had been shown for such a measure.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, the Bill proposed to give deserving women who were neglected by their husbands the power of compelling their husbands to maintain and educate their children. At present, there was no remedy for the wife but to break up the home and go into the workhouse; and then, and not till then, the Guardians, and the Guardians only, could proceed against the husband to make him do his duty. There was, under the existing law, a better remedy for the mother of illegitimate offspring than there was for the most deserving and industrious of wives. By this Bill nothing was asked for the wife herself. Further, it was assumed that she must work to maintain herself. He wished to point out, moreover, that a father must be proved to have the means of maintaining and educating his children, and to have refused to do so, before a magistrate could make any order under the Bill.

§ MR. LEWIS
remarked that a wife had, at present, the right to pledge the credit of her husband for necessaries for herself and children. The Bill placed a dangerous power in the hands of a spiteful wife. It was one of a series of measures introduced into that House for the purpose of separating those whom God had joined together. He would like to know where this sort of legislation was to end. It meant that they were to create a distinction between the husband and wife in every part of their social, and he had almost said their religious, obligations. Feeling that some limit must be set to legislation of that kind, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the general principle that the law should not interfere with the marriage contract had been departed from again and again where necessary, and it was well that it should be so, otherwise a husband might commit any criminal act he chose towards his wife without fear of punishment. There was a time when that was so; but it was so no longer. The Divine will, according to the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), affirmed in this case that a husband should not be asked to contribute towards the maintenance of the children whom he had begotten. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where they were to stop. He (Mr. Courtney) would say where common sense dictated. It was simply a matter of common sense to say that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should have the power to make such an order as was provided for by this Bill. It was said that the Bill would give a dangerous power to married women. Every remedy provided by the law might be made a pretext for an unfounded charge, but that fact furnished no argument against establishing a legal remedy which justice demanded. The Government had no hesitation in approving the principle of the Bill.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, that, looking at the Bill in the light of common sense, he was not disposed, off-hand, to say, like the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), that he desired to see it applied to Ireland. He was satisfied to have a doubtful experiment of this kind tried in England; and if it was found not to confuse all the social relations of the country, then possibly, in an amended form, it might be applied to Ireland. He did not think that the Lord Advocate would be very much annoyed at seeing Scotland excluded from the provisions of the Bill. From the enthusiasm with which the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Courtney) spoke in favour of the Bill, he should judge that the hon. Gentleman was not a married man. Having some acquaintance with the ordinary relations of mar- 1217 ried life, he (Mr. Gibson) regarded it as rather a startling proposal that a wife living in the same house as her husband could obtain an order against him for the maintenance of the children of the marriage. That was not only the construction of the Bill, but was its deliberate intention. Suppose that a husband, in the opinion of his wife and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, was not of the same intellectual capacity as the wife, although he might be capable of earning money for the support of his family, an order might be obtained against him, under this Bill, compelling him to contribute to the maintenance of his children in any way his wife pleased to bring them up. Then, in the case of couples living apart, the machinery of the law was to be put in motion in the district where the wife happened to be, and the husband, who might be living at the other end of the Kingdom, was to receive no notice of the proceedings. [Cries of "No !"] At all events, if he did not receive notice, he would be required to attend the Court in the locality of which the wife was a resident. He was aware that they lived in a time when some people contended that the wife should have all the husband's rights, and the husband no rights at all; but he thought that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and if a wife, having means of her own, left her husband and children, she should be compelled to contribute towards the support of her children. If that were common sense, why was it not in the Bill? In mercy to unfortunate English husbands and wives, he hoped that if the Bill were read a second, time it would only be on the clear understanding that it would be substantially changed in Committee.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
admitted the right of a deserted wife to obtain an order against her husband for the adequate support of their children; but he could not conceive that the House would sanction the application of the Bill to the case of husbands and wives who were living together. He could only assent to the second reading of the Bill, on the assurance of its promoter that no interference of that kind with conjugal relations was intended.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, it was a well-known principle of law that children should be supported by their father, and what the 1218 Bill aimed at was to carry out that principle without the unfortunate children having first to undergo the humiliation of receiving parish relief. He hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that the case of husbands and wives living together would be excluded from its operation. Of course, if a husband did not maintain his children, the wife could apply for a separation, and so obtain the benefit of this Bill.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
remarked, that it was, of course, in the power of the House to amend the Bill as it pleased in Committee. He hoped, however, to be able to show at that stage very good reasons Why the Bill should remain as it was.

§ MR. GIBSON
wished to have from the hon. and learned Member for Stockport a distinct answer whether or not he would consent to the limitation of the Bill as suggested by the Attorney General?

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, that unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could give them some assurance on the subject, he should move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he could only answer, as he had answered before, that that was in the power of the House.

§ MR. HICKS
said, that as the hon. and learned Member's answer to the appeal made to him was so unsatisfactory, he should state to the House the reasons why, in his opinion, this Bill ought not to be read a second time. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had drawn a very distressing picture of the state of women who, living apart from their husbands, applied for parish relief. He spoke of their furniture and all they possessed being sold before relief was given. No doubt, that might be the case if the law was strictly carried out; but in 40 years' experience as a Justice of the Peace and Guardian, he (Mr. Hicks) never knew of such a case, nor did he believe that such a case 1219 had ever occurred, unless where the Guardians had reason to believe there was deception. The state of facts on which the hon. and learned Member rested his case was entirely imaginary. He now came to the Bill itself——