COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 August 1882)

HC Deb 11 August 1882 vol 273 cc1603-12 1603

§ Order for Committee read.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
(who, on rising, was met with cries of "Oh, oh!") said, that hon. Members who said "Oh, 1604 oh!" might leave the House. He certainly had not the smallest intention of letting this Bill pass without a reasonable discussion. It was a Bill of enormous importance. He might say that it was as important as all the other Bills that had passed the House since this Parliament began. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but that was his opinion. The Bill might be right or might be wrong; but it created a social revolution that affected almost every family in this country, and was being passed through the House without one man or woman in a million having any idea of what was being done. ["No, no!"] "Well, that was his opinion. The Bill came down from the House of Lords, was put on the Paper the same day, and passed its first stage at 2 o'clock one morning without challenge or discussion, and now the second stage came on at a time when Members were impatient of everything, and when the Bill could not receive the discussion it required. Although it was useless to attempt to discuss it, he wished to say a word or two about it. He was quite willing to admit that the Bill was, to a certain extent, a reverting to old lines. It reverted, he might say, to the form of marriage which existed a few thousand years ago. There was a time when marriage took the form of capture, and after that it took the form of contract, which this Bill now proposed to give it. There was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question; but he thought that there were considerable difficulties about this "chumming" arrangement. In his opinion, take it all in all, the Christian form of marriage, under which there was complete community between the married parties for life, was the best form of marriage. But he was free to confess the current was running the other way—that the "women righters" had been exceedingly energetic, whilst the friends of the poor married man were indolent, so that the case of the poor married man was hopeless. He felt that he was only wasting the time of the House; but he had made an attempt to obtain a small measure of justice for the poor, unfortunate married man. Those who proposed this Bill desired that the woman should have all the privileges of the man, the control of her own property, and none of the man's liabilities. He had an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the House 1605 would adopt. It was none of his own devising, but was deliberately drawn and put in the Scotch Bill that passed this House last year by the Select Committee who dealt with the subject, and it was only in the House of Lords that it was thrown out. That Amendment would impose on a married woman who possessed all the privileges of a man, and who retained all her property, the same liabilities as her husband. If his right hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill would accept that Amendment, he would withdraw his opposition to the measure. Meanwhile, by way of protest, although he did not expect to carry the Amendment, he would formally move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on that day three months.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir George Campbell,)—instead thereof.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he must protest against the remarks of the hon. Member—that the Bill had not been heard of before, because it had passed through two Select Committees in successive Sessions, and would have become law before now but for the state of Public Business. If the House looked at the Bill they would see that it did not deserve the character given to it. It was just that a woman who inherited or acquired a small property should have the same protection which the rich could secure by means of marriage settlements and trustees. The people of Scotland last year obtained this protection; and he would put it to the hon. Member whether it was fair that he, a Scotchman, should interpose to prevent the English women having what the Scotch women got last year? It would be one of the most useful law reforms which had been carried for many years.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought the measure one of the utmost importance, which required much fuller consideration than it could receive at so late a period of the Session. The 3rd clause of the Bill would, in effect, act in restraint of 1606 marriage. No man would marry a woman with property, knowing that she could set him at defiance so long as the marriage continued. It would change the position of the sexes, and make the woman, instead of a kind and loving wife, a domestic tyrant. Scripture was opposed to the Bill—

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
I beg to ask you, Sir, whether this conversation on the part of the hon. and learned Member is relevant to the Question before the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member's speech is certainly very discursive, and I must invite him to address himself to the Question.

§ MR. WARTON
said, in that case he would only add that the fact that the Bill had been hurried through the House of Lords was not in its favour; and he would, therefore, beg the House to pause before sanctioning a social revolution.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, it had been complained that this Bill came on at this late period of the Session. Whose fault was that? The Bill came down from the House of Lords as early as the 3rd of June, and it was immediately blocked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who represented a constituency which had no interest whatever in this Bill, and which, moreover, already enjoyed the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill on English women. It was also blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who blocked every Bill, good, bad, or indifferent. It was not the case that the question had not been discussed—indeed, few questions had been more often debated. The Bill had been considered by two Select Committees—one of the House of Lords and one of the House of Commons, and had been approved both by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Cairns. In such circumstances, it would be a positive scandal if it did not now pass.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
wished to say that he had never, in the whole of his Parliamentary experience, heard a more distinctly obstructive speech than that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

1607

§ Bill considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Clause 1 (Married woman to be capable of holding property and of contracting as a feme sole).

§ MR. WARTON
said, he wished to insert, in line 11, after the word "woman," the words, "married after the passing of this Act." He urged that if there was to be a social revolution, it should be with regard to those who were going to be married, because those who were married had entered into marriage with their eyes open as to the state of the law. If they could not protect those who went before them, at any rate let them protect themselves; and he would call the attention of the Attorney General, or of the Judge Advocate General, who was in charge of the Bill, to the 1st clause, which said—"Every woman who marries after the commencement of this Act." "Why should they go back to those who were already married under the existing law? That would be ex post facto legislation. He quite saw what the feeling of the House was, and he would not press a point which the House was clearly opposed to when he had had a clear statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Hitherto, there had only been indiscriminate probation of the Bill; but when the Bill was considered step by step, it would be seen how far the House really approved of it. He would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the limitation in the clause, and to accept his suggestion.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, after the word "woman," to insert "who marries after the commencement of this Act."—(Mr, Warton.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would destroy the Bill. The hon. and learned Member misunderstood the clause. It only declared, in general terms, the capacity of a married woman to hold property without the intervention of a trustee. The subsequent clauses defined the extent of this right in the several cases of a woman married before and after the Act.

§ MR. WARTON
said, it was easy for a Minister to get up and say an Amend- 1608 ment would destroy the Bill; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why persons who were already married should have the benefit of this Act? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was a stock phrase, and would apply to every clause; and, therefore, he must press for an explanation.

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, he thought the Bill was all right as it stood. Suppose a married woman to-morrow received a sum of money which had been left to her, it was quite right that she should have the same protection as an unmarried woman.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. WARTON
moved, in line 12, after the word "married," to insert "and hereafter acquired." This Amendment, he thought, would meet the case of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He quite saw the hon. Gentleman's point, and perhaps this Amendment might compromise the matter. It was quite right that a married woman should have protection for property put in her hands.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "married," insert "and hereafter acquired."—(Mr. War-ton.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

§ Clause 4 (Execution of general power).

§ MR. WARTON
asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he restricted this power by will, or whether he would not make it by deed? Powers were often conveyed by will; but why should a man be restricted to that form?

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, this clause only applied to deceased persons. It dealt with the administration of the assets of a deceased person; and, therefore, the hon. and learned Member's point did not arise.

§ MR. WARTON
said, the clause said nothing about deceased persons.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, that before the clause could apply the person must have died.

§ MR. WARTON
asked why the case had been overlooked of a married man, who, as might often happen, wished to 1609 give something to his wife by deed or will; and why there was no power for conveying by deed?

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (As to stock, &c. to which a married woman is entitled).

§ On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 2, line 38, after "commissioners," by inserting "for the reduction;" and in page 3, line 2, after "the," by inserting "sole."

§ Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, after "any," insert "Municipal Corporation in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. H. G. ALLEN
said, he thought some alteration of the wording of this clause was required—"interest in the securities of a Corporation" seemed to be what was intended rather than "interest in any Corporation."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, if the hon. Member would look a little further on in the Bill, he would see that this point was met.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 3, line 13, after "woman," by leaving out "without the name of her husband;" in page 3, line 15, after "empower her," by inserting "to receive or transfer the same, and;" in page 3, line 16, after "thereof," by leaving out from "and" to "same" inclusive, in line 17.