HL Deb 18 July 1870 vol 203 cc395-401

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that after the Bill had been read the second time, their Lordships had referred the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, which, after examining its provisions with great zeal and diligence, had reported it with considerable Amendments to the House. These Amendments altered the Bill so much that he thought it would be a convenience to their Lordships if he briefly explained them. First of all, then, it was provided that the earnings of a married woman, whether they were wages or the result of trade, or of literary, artistic, or scientific skill, should be treated as though they were property settled to her separate use. The Bill next proceeded to deal with the mode of protecting investments which had been made by married women, whether by means of their earnings or otherwise. Under the existing law a husband might, after giving proper notice, withdraw from an ordinary savings-bank, or a Post Office savings-bank, any deposits placed there by his wife. The Bill, however, as amended, provided that all deposits made in the name of a married woman, or of a woman who might marry after she had made such deposit, should be deemed her separate property, as though she were an unmarried woman. The 3rd and 4th clauses provided that where a married woman, or any woman about to be married and her intended husband, might apply to the Governor of the Bank, or to the directors of any joint-stock company, that any sum not less than £20 of the public funds deposited, or about to be so, and any shares in the company, might be held by them as the separate property of the wife, and the dividends paid to her. This provision was greatly needed, because women who had saved up £100 or so were very unwilling to ask their future husbands to sign any documents with reference to it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had given notice of an additional clause dealing with shares in friendly societies in the same way; and this would improve the Bill still further. To all these clauses a Proviso was attached that if any investments were made by a wife with the moneys of her husband, and without his consent, application might be made to the Court in a very summary way; and it was likewise provided that nothing contained in the Bill should authorize the making of any investment in fraud of creditors. With regard to personal property coming to a married woman as next of kin to a person dying intestate, it was provided that it should belong to her for her separate use. In like manner she would have the separate use of land coming to her as heir-at-law to an intestate person. The 9th clause would, in his opinion, prove highly beneficial. At present, if a husband affected a policy of insurance in his own name, intending it as a provision for his family, it became after his decease a part of his general estate and was available to pay his debts. Indeed, as it was one of the assets most easily got hold of, it was usually applied to that purpose. This Bill, however, provided that if a married woman effected an insurance on her own life or the life of her husband, expressing on the face of it that it was intended for her own separate use and benefit, it should enure accordingly. The next provision was a very important one; if a husband effected a policy of insurance which expressed upon the face of it that it was to be for the benefit of his wife and children, it should be deemed a trust for the benefit of the wife for her separate use, or of the wife and children, according to the interest so expressed, and should not be liable to the claims of his creditors; but if the Court should find that the policy had been effected and the premiums paid by the husband with intent to defraud his creditors, they would be entitled to receive out of the sum secured an amount equal to the premiums paid. After these explanations he trusted their Lordships would have no difficulty in going into Committee on the Bill.

LORD PENZANCE

said, he thought the Bill as it now stood to be of a practical, workable character. It would enable married women to enjoy the benefit of any money they might have earned by their industry or talents. Even those who were adverse to some portions of the Bill agreed that this particular object ought to be carried out. But when the Bill came up from the other House of Parliament it was based on a very much wider principle, emanating from an altogether different set of ideas. The Bill then proposed to treat a married woman in all respects as an unmarried one as far as property was concerned. Indeed, as far as the utter separation of property could bring about that result, it was a Bill to separate husband and wife. He would not now enter on a discussion as to whether that was desirable or not; but he might be allowed to remark that the opinions of those who advocated the entire separation of husband and wife as regards property had not been accepted by the community. He opposed the Bill when it was introduced into the House, but the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had now in reality framed a fresh measure.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he believed the Bill would prove one of the greatest social blessings ever brought about by legislation. Women were now closely competing with men as producers; he believed there were as many as 800,000 women employed at wages in England, and putting their earnings down so low as at £20 each, their total earnings would be £16,000,000 a year. Surely that was a sum which should be protected from the violence and rapacity of husbands. But he wished the Bill had also secured to the woman any savings she might have made from her earnings before marriage. One clause in the Bill secured these savings if invested in the savings-banks; that was a good provision as regarded money, because it would encourage providence; but money was not the only property a woman about to be married would be possessed of. How many young women possessed articles of value, such as jewellery and clothes, or had invested their savings in a sewing-machine or a mangle?—yet these were not secured to them by the Bill, and would become the property of the husband immediately after marriage.

House in Committee.

Clause 1 (Earnings of married women to be deemed their own property).

LORD LYTTELTON

suggested that the Bill be made retrospective in its action.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that would be in violation of the principles which guided the legislation in such cases as this. To make this Bill retrospective would be to take from many men what they now believed to be their property. The property of a married woman could not be effectually secured without the intervention of trustees, and the Bill made the Bank or the managers of savings-banks and joint-stock companies trustees as to such property as might be invested; but it was impracticable to protect a woman's earnings before marriage unless they had been invested.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the Bill had been greatly improved in the Select Committee, and, he believed, when its provisions came to be understood, women would be quick to take advantage of it. As to particular chattels bought by a woman before marriage out of her own property, it had long been settled that they continued her separate property; and she might protect any property other than that provided for in the Bill by appointing a trustee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Deposits in savings-bank by a married woman to be deemed her separate property).

LORD HOUGHTON

said, it seemed to him that this and the next two clauses were founded on a total absence of principle. Married women were compelled by them to invest their money in one of four different ways—as a deposit in a savings-bank, as a Government annuity, in the funds, or in a joint-stock company, because they provided that if they were not so invested they should not have those savings protected by law for their separate use. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said they could appoint a trustee; but anyone who knew anything of the habits of the women whom it was proposed by this Bill to serve would know that such a thing as a trustee never entered their heads. What was needed was some simple process by which property of all kinds acquired by a married woman could be secured to her separate use. Why could it not be provided that any property a woman had should remain hers, unless the husband could prove that it belonged to him? He knew of an instance in which a widow married, bringing to her second husband the property of her first, and this second husband died, having willed the property away from the woman and her children. He hoped that on the Report the question might be placed on some sound principle.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he could not admit that the clause was devoid of principle. The principle of the clause was that of carrying into the humbler ranks of life that protection to women that already existed in the higher ranks; that was, that property having been placed in some tangible form, should, through the intervention of trustees, be protected. It was impossible to secure property to the woman unless by pointing out how it was to be invested.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (As to married woman's property in funds) agreed to.

Clause 4 (As to married woman's property in joint-stock company).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that whereas this clause provided that only paid-up shares might be conveyed to the separate use of a married woman, it made no similar provision in the event of the shares not being fully paid up. In the event of the shares, as far as they were paid up, becoming the sole property of the wife, to whom were the directors of a company to look for the payment of the remaining calls upon such shares—the husband being protected by another clause in the Bill from liability for his wife's debts?

LORD CAIRNS

explained that the husband would not be liable for calls upon the shares not fully paid up, which had belonged to his wife before her marriage, until he committed some act that rendered him liable at law. He would, however, introduce an Amendment to meet the case referred to by the noble Marquess.

EARL POWIS

inquired whether a married woman would have a right to vote at meetings of the company in respect of her shares?

LORD CAIRNS

said, she would have a right to vote if the shares stood upon the register in her name.

Clause agreed to.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

moved the following new clause after Clause 4:— Any married woman, or any woman about to be married and her intended husband, may apply, in writing, to the committee of management of any industrial and provident society, or to the trustees of any friendly society, benefit building society, or loan society, duly registered, certified, or enrolled under the Acts relating to such societies respectively, that any share, benefit, debenture right or claim whatsoever in, to, or upon the funds of such society to which the persons or persons so applying is or are entitled may be entered in the books of the society in the name of the woman as a married woman, entitled to her separate use; and it shall be the duty of such committee or trustees to cause the same to be so entered, and thereupon such share, benefit, debenture, right or claim shall be deemed to be the separate property of such woman, and shall be transferable and payable with all dividends and profits thereon as if she were an unmarried woman; provided, that if any such share, benefit, debenture, right, or claim has been obtained by a married woman by means of moneys of her husband without his consent, the Court may upon an application under section eight of this Act order the same and the dividends and profits thereon, or any part thereof, to be transferred and paid to the husband.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Deposit of moneys in fraud of creditors invalid), agreed to.

Clause 6 (Personal property coming to a married woman to be her own), agreed to.

Clause 7 (Freehold property coming to a married woman to be her own), agreed to.

LORD HOUGHTON

moved to insert the following clause:— If any married woman after the passing of this Act become entitled to a sum of money not exceeding two hundred pounds as legatee under a will, it shall form part of her separate estate, unless the County Court Judge of the district in which she lives shall, upon the application of her husband, otherwise order; and the order of the said judge shall be binding and conclusive on the said married woman and her husband as to all or any part of the said sum so bequeathed. The Court of Chancery was in the habit of apportioning all legacies to the wife above £200 between the husband and wife. He thought the Bill should do the same thing for the poor woman that the Court of Chancery did for the rich woman.

LORD PENZANCE

said, the noble Lord was about to proceed further than the Court of Chancery, because instead of apportioning the legacy between the husband and the wife, he proposed to give it altogether to the latter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he thought the point deserved attention and hoped the noble and learned Lord would consider it.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

An Amendment made by inserting the 1st November, 1870, instead of the 1st January, 1871 as the date when the Act shall come into operation.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 216.)