§ MR. MALINSsaid, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to enable Married Women to dispose of Reversionary and other Interests in Personal Estate." This was a question, he considered, of great public importance, in respect to which it was necessary that there should be a material improvement made in the law of the country. The House was aware that the alteration which took place in the law in 1833 was in consequence of the recommendation of the Real Property Commissioners of 1828. By that alteration a great improvement was made in the alienation of real property by married women, by the substitution of a simple deed for the inconvenient and tedious practice that had previously prevailed. But by a singular anomaly in the law a married woman was utterly incompetent to make any alienation of her interest in personal property. A married woman may, for example, have an interest in the sum of 1,000l. or 2,000l., which may be payable to her upon the death of a relative; and though the exigencies of herself and her family may make it desirable to have this property made immediately available, yet as the law now stands it was impossible that this advantage could be gained. If the husband make an assignment, it was not binding upon the wife; and if an as- 463 signment be made by the wife, she being under coverture, the act could not be recognised in law. If she be desirous of raising money, no person dealing with her could have any security, for if she outlive her husband any deed she may have entered into for the purpose of alienating her property would become void as against her. The fact is, that the present defective state of the law holds out an inducement to a married woman to alienate her interest in personal property, with the idea if she survived her husband of claiming it notwithstanding. Such property was therefore comparatively valueless, so far as making it available to meet the exigencies of the family in the lifetime of the husband. The law says it will protect the married woman against the undue influence of her husband; and it further in effect says that if she outlive her husband it is beneficial for her to disregard what she may have done in the way of alienating her property, and to do that which was dishonest. He (Mr. Malins) thought that he could not do a greater service to all parties concerned than in using his best endeavours to remedy this anomalous state of the law. The law ought either to disable the married woman from dealing with her real estate, or to enable her to deal with her personal estate. He proposed to confer upon a married woman the same power of alienating her personal property; of making it the subject of family settlement; of selling, mortgaging, or of dealing with it in any way she and her husband may think proper, as she now possessed in respect to her real estate. There was one other object which he wished to effect. At present when a married woman came into possession of property, it was the rule of the Court of Chancery that she was entitled to what was called a settlement of equity, which was generally held to amount to one-half of the property. The practice of the Court of Chancery was, that a married woman should appear before a Judge or Master in Chancery, who examined her in private as to her wish to have this settlement made, or whether she waived her right. He (Mr. Malins) had had a good deal of experience in this matter, but he never knew a married woman claim her equity of settlement except in one instance, and that was under a misapprehension. He proposed to provide that, without personal appearance before the Court, which was always expensive, and often inconvenient, a married woman might be at liberty by a 464 simple deed to waive her right to equity of settlement. In order to avoid all these difficulties in the existing law, and to do away with these anomalies, he now asked leave to introduce the Bill.
MR. LOCKE KING ,in seconding the Motion, said, he begged to return the hon. and learned Member his best thanks for bringing this question under the consideration of the House. This was a step in the right direction. He heard with much satisfaction a Motion of this kind coming from the opposite side of the House. He would take this as an earnest of much larger measures of reform, and he hoped he might claim the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon a future occasion.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he also must express his satisfaction at seeing this subject brought before the House. The great principle of the law of England was to bring every description of property within one general system of legislation. About thirty years ago a decision took place in the Court of Chancery in respect to this subject, which undoubtedly proceeded upon a mere fallacy. That decision had, however, been repeated by another Judge, and now that view of the law was firmly established. That decision had the effect of declaring that nothing could be done by a married woman in the way of alienating her personal property during coverture which would bind her in the event of her surviving her husband. That, however, was quite at variance with the principle of the law which recognised an analogy and correspondence between the ownership of real and of personal property. He approved of the main objects of the Bill, without binding himself to the details of the measure.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malins, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Follett.