SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 June 1882)

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, he regretted the necessity of asking the House to read this Bill a second time at so late an hour (1.35 A.M.). But he apprehended that the Motion he was about to make would not meet with any opposition on the part of hon. Members, inasmuch as the Bill was nearly identical with that which, two years ago, was settled by a Select Committee, and subsequently received the sanction of Lord Cairns. Having regard to that, and to the fact that the principle of the Bill had been over and over again discussed in that House, he trusted hon. Members would agree to the second reading, in which case they might be assured that the Committee stage of the measure would not be taken except at a time when its clauses could be fully considered.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he hoped the Bill would not then be pressed 616 to a second reading. He need hardly say that it was a measure of enormous importance, and one which might be said to alter the state of every one of Her Majesty's subjects. Moreover, the Bill had only been circulated yesterday morning, and neither he nor several of his hon. Friends had any idea that it would come on at so short a Notice, and that they would be asked to give it a second reading at once. It was said that the Bill was identical with one which had been prepared by a Select Committee; but he must point out that the Bill so prepared had never been before the House. Ho felt bound to say that it would be almost indecent to pass the Bill through the important stage of second reading at that hour of the morning (1.40); and, in order to give further time for its consideration, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. RICHARD POWER
said, he did not often agree with the views of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy; but on the present occasion he felt it his duty to second the Motion just made. It was impossible to overrate the importance of the changes proposed in some of the clauses of this Bill. For instance, in Clause 14, he found that a husband was to be liable for the debts and wrongs of his wife contracted and committed before marriage—a provision that did not commend itself to his judgment, inasmuch as he thought it was quite sufficient for a man to be liable for those which arose after marriage. Clause 17 was also objectionable, for it provided that all questions between husband and wife were to be decided in a summary way. Again, with regard to Clause 22, which was to enact that a married woman should be liable, through the parish, for the maintenance of her husband, he had to remark that, bad as the existing law was, this was worse. Then Clause 23 provided that a married woman was to be liable, through the parish, for the maintenance of her children. This was worse again. Considering the lateness of the hour, and the bad law which the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to introduce, he should support the Motion for the adjournment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
pointed out that the clauses which had been referred to did little more than declare the existing law.