SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 August 1857)

§ LORD MONTEAGLE,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said he most sincerely apologised to their Lordships for having undertaken to bring this Bill before their notice, which might far better have fallen to the lot of some one possessed of more legal knowledge than himself. But the legal Members of the House would, doubtless, give him their assistance upon the measure. The Bill had, in fact, been assented to by the other House of Parliament on several occasions since 1838, and the present measure had passed with the almost unanimous consent of the House of Commons. He might state that he had received recommendations from some of their Lordships, proposing Amendments to the Bill. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Wensleydale) had suggested some alterations, which might be made in Committee, and his noble Friend on the woolsack had stated that other words might be found necessary to be added, in order to prevent the Bill from being interpreted so as to have any retrospective action. His noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord St. Leonards), he was aware, entertained strong objections to the measure; in 1838 he had, indeed, opposed its introduction in the other House of Parliament. But a few statements 1216 of fact would, he hoped, be sufficient on his (Lord Monteagle's) part to recommend the Bill to their Lordships' notice. The subject of the property of married women had been repeatedly under consideration since the presentation of the Report of the Commissioners who had inquired into the subject. By the Fines and Recoveries Act powers were granted to married women of disposing of their real property to the fullest extent. That Act was accompanied by provisions to guard against abuse; and every power which he now proposed to grant by this Bill in regard to the personal property of married women, had already been given in regard to their real estate by the former statute. That Act lately passed, upon the recommendation of experienced and enlightened Commissioners, had been carried into effect without giving rise to any complaint, and, therefore, on the ground of analogy, the present Bill had a claim to their Lordships' support. On what principle could they refuse to married women interested in the reversion of personal property the same power of disposition already conceded to them in respect of their reversionary interest in real estate? The effect of the present state of the law was, that personal property, in which any married woman had a reversionary interest, could not be mortgaged or sold, except exposed to the contingency of the death of the wife in her husband's lifetime; for if she survived her husband, nothing could prevent the property from reverting to her, and her right would hold good even against the claims of persons who had purchased for a valuable consideration. Practically speaking, the existence of these contingencies greatly deteriorated the value of property subject to them, and it could, therefore, only be sold at a considerable loss. Great hardship was often produced by this state of the law. It was, indeed, said that under a different state of things, and with more freedom of action, a wife might be induced by her husband to dispose of property applicable to her children, who would thereby suffer wrong. But this Bill gave the same security for independence of action on the part of a married woman as was granted by the Fines and Recoveries Act. It was true that the original measure proposed in 1838 had been rejected upon a second reading in the House of Commons; but the present Bill differed considerably from that measure, and it would differ still more with the Amendments he proposed 1217 to make in Committee. He therefore hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the understanding that the Amendments suggested by his learned Friends, the Chancellor and Lord Wensleydale, should be introduced in Committee.

§ LORD ST. LEONARDS
said, he greatly regretted that a Bill of so much importance and involving so great a principle should be brought on for a second reading at so late a period of the Session, and in the absence of many noble and learned Lords. The Bill had been lying on their Lordships' table for several weeks, and no one of the law Lords had shown the slightest inclination to take charge of it. This Bill was the thin edge of the wedge, the object of its promoters being to enable a married woman to dispose of whatever reversionary interest she might have in personal estate. A Bill of a similar kind was introduced into the House of Commons in 1838. He moved its rejection, and it was carried by 57 votes against 21. It was said then, as now, that a reversionary interest in real estate was in the power and disposition of a married woman, and it was asked why she should not also be able to dispose of her reversionary interest in personal estate? The answer was, that it was a great blessing there should be this difference between real and personal estate. Married women had always had the power, under certain precautions, of disposing of their reversionary interest in real property; but real estate was generally dealt with after more deliberation, and he was not prepared to change the law in order that a reversionary interest in personal property might be sold to some of the parties who dealt in buying reversionary interests. This was in fact a Bill to enable dealers in reversions to strip married women of their property, and leave them penniless after their husband's death. From the earliest time such a power as was now asked never existed in this country. It was said that in cases where there was a marriage settlement the power given under the Bill was not to be exercised. But the only reason why the promoters of the Bill had not asked for this power at present was because they were sure the House would not grant it. Suppose a man by his will left his son-in-law certain property, which at the decease of the latter was to pass to the testator's daughter. The testator at present believed, when he was 1218 dying, that he was making a provision for his daughter; and what could be more reasonable than that she should be protected against her husband and her husband's creditors? Who was to provide for her after her husband's death if he should be able to persuade her to divest herself of the property which her father had left her? Their Lordships were asked to sweep away the protection which the law now threw around married women: and for what cause? Where was the hardship of the present law? It was said to be a hardship that a woman could not sell that which was valuable. But that was the great benefit of the law, which, for good reasons, took care that what a married woman had in reversion she could not part with. The present Bill enabled her to dispose of this reversion with her husband's consent. But would he not be able to control her when pressed for money and urged by his creditors? He need not remind their Lordships of the sacrifice at which a reversionary interest was sold. Such property could only be sold at a great depreciation, and it was well known that companies had been established for the express purpose of buying reversionary interests, and the moment Parliament passed this Bill there was not a married woman in the kingdom who had a reversionary interest who would not be persuaded by her husband to sell it if he were pressed by his creditors. Then when the time came that a woman stood in need of this property for herself and children she would find that she was left without a shilling. Entertaining these views with respect to the Bill, he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
expressed his approval of the Bill, as calculated to effect a considerable improvement in the existing law, by extending the principle of the free disposition of property. He felt bound, however, at the same time to observe that he could not give his assent to the passing of the Bill unless it were so amended in Committee as not to apply to any property which a person might enjoy by virtue of a will of a date previous to the 1st of January, 1858, and so framed as to exclude from its operation any property which a testator might express it to be his wish should not be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

LORD CAMPBELL
was understood to support the principle which the Bill proposed to carry into effect.